THE 


Church  0-ub 

Lectures 


THE 

SIX   CECUMENICAL 

COUNCILS 


331. a 


S\3 


in  th^  ®it0  0f  ^tw  ^0vh 


l^xbrarg 


GIVEN    BY 


r"^  I 


...UEIv.EP.nii L.L.La' 


The   Church   Club   Lectures. 


New  and  cheaper  editions  in  cloth  binding. 
Price,  so  cents  each,  net. 

1888.— THE  HISTORY  AND  TEACHINGS  OF  THE 
EARLY  CHURCH,  as  a  Basis  for  the  Re-Union  of 
Christendom.  By  Bishops  Coxe  and  Seymour,  and 
Rev.  Drs.  Richey,  Garrison,  and  Egar. 

1889.— THE  CHURCH  IN  THE  BRITISH  ISLES. 
Sketches  of  its  continuous  history  from  the  earliest 
times  to  the  Restoration.  By  Bishops  Doane  and 
KiNGDON,  and  Rev.  Drs.  Hart,  Allen,  and  Gailor. 

1890— THE  POST -RESTORATION  PERIOD  OF 
THE  CHURCH  IN  THE  BRITISH  ISLES. 
In  continuation  of  the  series  of  1889.  By  Bishops 
Perry  and  McLaren,  and  Rev.  Drs.  Mortimer, 
Richey,  and  Davenport. 

1891.— CATHOLIC  DOGMA.  The  Fundamental 
Truths  of  Revealed  Religion.  By  Bishops  Little- 
john  and  Sessums,  and  Rev.  Drs.  Huntington, 
Mortimer,  Elliott,  and  Walpole. 

1893.— THE  CHURCH'S  MINISTRY  OF  GRACE. 
By  Bishops  Garratt  and  Grafton,  and  the  Rev. 
Drs.  Clark,  Fiske,  and  Robbins. 


E.   &  J.    B.   YOUNG   &   CO., 
Cooper   Union,    Fourth    Ave.,    New  York. 


THE 

Six  (Ecumenical  Councils 


OF   THE 


Undivided  Catholic  Church 


Xectures 

DELIVERED   IN    1 893    UNDER    THE    AUSPICES   OF    THE 
CHURCH    CLUB    OF    NEW    YORK 


NEW  YORK 
E.  &    J.  B.  YOUNG    &    CO. 

COOPER  UNION,  FOURTH  AVENUE 


1893  : 


Copyright,  1893 
By  E.  &  J.  B.  Young  &  Co. 


CONTENTS. 

LECTURE   I. 

FACE 

THE   CONCILIAR  ORGANIZATION   OF  THE  CHURCH.  I 

By  the  Rev.   R.  M.   Benson,  M.A.,   St.   John   the 
Evangelist,  Boston.     Student  of  Christ  Church, 
Oxford. 

LECTURE   11. 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^EA 59 

By  the  Rev.    W.  McGarvey,   B.D.,   Church  of  the 
Evangelists,  Philadelphia. 

LECTURE   in. 

THE    FIRST    COUNCIL    OF    CONSTANTINOPLE Ill 

By  the  Right  Rev.  W.  A.   Leonard,  D.D.,  Bishop  of 

Ohio. 

LECTURE   IV. 

THE  COUNCIL   OF   EPHESUS 143 

By  the  Rev.  Morgan  Dix,  S.  T.  D. ,  D.  C.L. ,  Rector  of 
Trinity  Parish,  New  York. 


363682 


IV  CONTENTS, 


LECTURE   V. 

PAGE 

THE   COUNCIL    OF    CHALCEDON 177 

By  the  Rev.  J.   J.   Elmendorf,  S.T.D.,  Instructor 
in  Apologetics  and  Moral  Theology  at  the  West- 
ern Theological  Seminary,  Chicago. 

LECTURE   VL 

THE   SECOND  AND   THIRD    COUNCILS   OF   CONSTAN- 
TINOPLE        243 

By  the  Rev.  T.  M.  Riley,  S.  T.D.     Professor  of  Ec- 
clesiastical History  at  Nashotah  House,   Wis- 
consin. 


^be  Conciliar  ©roanisation  of  the 

Cburcb. 


LECTURE   I. 

THE   REV.   RICHARD   MEUX   BENSON,  M.A., 

S.  John  the  Evangelist,  Boston.     Student  of  Christ  Church, 

Oxford. 


THE   CO  NCI  LIAR    ORGANIZATION  OF 
THE  CHURCH. 

I  HAVE  to  set  before  you  the  Conciliar  organ- 
ization of  the  Church. 

Alas  !  We  look  back  through  many  centuries, 
and  the  glorious  vision  of  the  Church  meeting 
in  her  Councils  is  seen  no  more.  The  loss  is 
sad  ;  but  not  less  sad  the  history  of  the  Coun- 
cils while  they  yet  could  meet.  We  see  the 
Church  of  Christ  breasting  with  difficulty  the 
waves  of  man's  self-will,  whereas  we  looked  to 
see  the  Mother  of  all  living  speaking  in  calm 
majesty  the  words  of  life  for  the  healing  of  the 
nations. 

Sad  narrative  !  Only  to  be  paralleled  with 
the  sad  narrative  of  the  Passion !  Yes  !  The 
Gospels  tell  us  of  the  Incarnate  Son  humbling 
Himself  by  suffering  to  vanquish  the  Prince  of 


4  ORGAmZATION  OF  THE   CHURCH. 

this  world.  The  law  of  victory  continues. 
The  sovereignty  of  Truth  can  be  achieved  on 
earth  only  by  the  Cross.  Successive  struggles 
meet  the  heavenly  Conqueror.  The  blood- 
thirstiness  of  heathen  foes,  the  perversions  of 
heresy,  the  carnality  of  unrestrained  sensualism, 
the  blindness  of  ignorance,  the  madness  of  self- 
will,  the  apathy  of  unbelief,  now  in  our  own  day 
the  idolatrous  covetousness  of  a  money-making 
age  !  Such  is  the  history  of  the  Church.  Yet 
comes  she  forth  evermore  triumphant. 

Amidst  the  intellectual  strife  of  her  first 
emergence  from  persecution,  God  the  Holy 
Ghost,  dwelling  in  the  Church,  preserved  her 
from  destruction  chiefly  by  means  of  Councils. 
The  Doctors  of  the  Church  do  not  stand  in  iso- 
lated conflict  like  the  prophets  of  the  elder  dis- 
pensation. Prophets  maintained  the  abstract 
Truth  of  God  ;  but  the  noble  army  of  Martyrs 
lived,  spoke,  suffered,  died,  as  representative 
members  of  the  Body  of  Christ.  The  witness 
of  the  individual  came  forth  from  the  heart  of 
a  society,  however  dull  and  timid  that  society 
at  times  might  be.  Sooner  or  later  the  Coun- 
cil gave  its  collective  testimony. 

Councils  have  been  called  the  pitched  battles 
of  the  Church's  history.  Rather  let  us  think 
of  them  as  the  vital  pulsation  of  the  heart.  At 
times  the    palpitating  throb    may  disturb   the 


ORGANIZATION  OF   THE   CHURCH.  S 

effortless  regularity  of  respiration,  but  that 
-breath  in  all  its  joyousness  is  the  true  energy 
of  life.  The  painful  spasm  is  not  a  normal  con- 
dition, but  a  functional  disorder.  Tranquil,  ex- 
hilarating, unnoticeable  is  the  quiet  action  of 
the  frame  developing  in  healthy  vigor.  Even 
so  unobtrusively  did  constant  Councils  give 
play  to  the  secret  fellowship  of  brotherly  love, 
while  the  Church  in  the  exercise  of  Divine  be- 
neficence grew  to  the  demands  of  her  heavenly 
mission.  So  was  her  strength  matured  to  en- 
counter the  wild  assaults  of  her  persistent  foe. 
"A  oreneral  Council,"  as  Milman  savs,  "is  not 
the  cause  but  the  consequence  of  religious  dis- 
sension." ("  Latin  Christianity,"  I.  228.)  When 
there  was  need  of  battles  the  Church  showed 
her  life,  her  strength,  her  Divine  authority. 
The  passion  of  partisanship  would  have  left  no 
abiding  result  behind.  Opinions  gain  but  a 
momentary  victory.  The  victory  of  the  Church 
in  her  Councils  is  the  victory  of  Truth,  the 
victory  of  eternal  freedom,  the  victory  of  God. 
The  Apostles,  as  they  went  forth  into  the  Ro- 
man Empire,  were  not  merely  to  form  congre- 
o-ations  of  individuals.  Their  mission  was  to 
organize  a  new  political  system,  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  upon  earth,  which  should  survive  the 
tempestuous  antagonism  of  surrounding  multi- 
tudes, and  renew  a  decaying  w^orld  with  a  glo- 


6  ORGANIZATION  OF   THE    CHURCH. 

rious  civilization,  such  as  had  never  been  known 
before, — a  brotherhood  of  man  regenerated  by 
the  Fatherhood  of  the  Incarnate  God,  victorious 
under  the  banners  of  Calvary,  strong  in  the  indi- 
visible unity,  strong  in  the  invincible  individu- 
ality of  the  indwelling  Spirit — the  Holy  Catho- 
lic Church,  indissolubly  One,  the  Communion  of 
Saints  possessing  the  individual  inspiration  of 
a  heavenly  birth. 

It  was  to  outlive  all  time,  but  through  the 
ages  of  time  it  was  to  meet  fresh  fights  and  win 
fresh  victories.  It  was  to  be  the  tabernacle  of 
God  among  men.  This  kingdom  must  adapt  it- 
self to  every  legitimate  form  of  human  society, 
as  well  as  to  every  legitimate  aspiration  of  the 
human  heart.  Human  society  tends  to  crush 
man's  individuality,  but  the  society  of  grace  en- 
nobles each  man  that  is  born  therein  with  an 
exhaustless  treasury  of  powers  suited  to  the 
temperament  of  each.  The  poet  deplores  the 
levelling  progress  of  earthly  civilization  : 

•'The  individual  withers  and  the  world  is  more  and  more." 

Earthly  resources  are  limited  and  mechan- 
ical. They  droop.  They  die.  Not  so  is  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven,  the  living  Body  of  Him 
who  is  seated  at  the  Right  Hand  of  God. 
He  became  truly  Man,  and  His  Church  is  the 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE    CHURCH.  / 

extension  of  that  Humanity  which  He  has  as- 
sumed. That  is  true  of  the  Church  which  is 
true  of  Him. 

Homo  sum  :   nihil  humani  a  Me  alienum  puto. 

His  fuhiess  is  for  His  Church  as  a  whole.  The 
Church  is  His  Body,  the  fuhiess  of  Him  that 
filleth  all  in  all.  What  operates  in  any  one  of 
His  members  is  not  drained  from  the  rest. 
Fresh  faculties  springing  up  in  each  show  the 
vmabated  vigor  which  animates  all  the  compan}?- 
of  the  faithful — individually  exercised — corpo- 
rately  possessed — limitless  in  variety,  limitless 
in  intensity,  as  flowing  down  to  each  member 
from  the  limitless  heritage  of  the  Eternal  Son- 
ship, 

The  Apostles  went  forth  to  make  saints, 
supernatural  men,  citizens  of  the  Church,  as  a 
supernatural  Empire. 

They  took  the  Empire  which  they  found  ex- 
isting, as  the  basis  of  that  Spiritual  Empire 
which  they  were  sent  to  found.  The  regener- 
ating grace  of  the  Apostolic  Church  was  to  in- 
spire the  same  mass  of  humanity  which  the 
military  power  of  imperial  despotism  had  domi- 
nated with  devastation.  The  truth  of  human 
nature  indicated  that  the  institutions  of  civil 
society  must  be  the  form  into  which  the  Divine 
life  should  be  infused. 


8  ORGAMIZATION  OF  THE   CHURCH. 

What,  then,  was  that  form  ? 

The  cities  of  the  empire  had  each  their  senate 
{/3ov\i]),  an  ordo  or  cnn'a,  the  members  of  which 
were  under  the  presidency  of  one  who  was 
called  dictator  or  defensor  civitatis,  and  his  juris- 
diction extended  over  the  suburban  population 
{irpoda-reta)  in  the  surrounding  villages. 

These  councillors  in  modern  time  would  be 
called  aldermen,  or  in  ecclesiastical  language, 
presbyters.  The  chief  was  the  mayor,  who,  in 
ecclesiastical  language,  was  afterward  called 
the  bishop,  the  supervisor.  This  chief  officer 
was  at  first  called  an  apostle  {i.e.,  commissioner) 
or  angel  {i.e.,  messenger).  So  simply  did  the 
seed  of  life  begin  to  spring  up  throughout  the 
world. 

Time  went  on.  The  title  of  Apostle,  hallowed 
because  our  Lord  gave  it  to  the  original  twelve, 
was  then  restricted  to  those  who  had  seen  our 
Lord  in  the  flesh,  the  original  commissioners  by 
whom,  as  stewards  of  Divine  mysteries,  the 
powers  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  had  been  first 
of  all  dispensed  to  the  nations  of  the  world. 

Names  change  with  changing  history ;  life  is 
unchangeable.  "  Jesus  Christ,  the  same  yester- 
day and  to-day  and  forever,"  is  the  watchword 
of  all  missionary  progress.  Our  work  now  is 
the  same  as  that  of  the  Church  in  the  beginning. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE    CHURCH.  9 

Therefore  the  ministry  then  and  now  must  be 
identical.  God,  who  gives  work,  gives  power. 
Have  miracles  ceased  ?  If  so,  it  is  not  because 
God  has  stinted  His  love.  The  fault  is  our 
own.  Were  our  faith  now  as  in  those  days  of 
the  martyrs,  the  like  signs  would  follow  them 
that  believe.  Miracles  do  not  belong  to  an 
Apostolic  ministry,  but  they  are  evidence  of  the 
Church's  faith.  Miracles  were  a  blessing  when 
the  faithful  had  to  die  for  their  faith.  Miracles 
would  be  a  curse  if  they  were  permitted  to 
gratify  the  adulterous  cravings  of  a  worldly 
heart. 

As  the  Roman  roads  prepared  the  way  for  the 
Gospel  preacher,  so  did  the  civic  organization 
of  the  Empire  prepare  the  way  for  the  minis- 
terial organization  of  grace  in  the  world-wide 
City  of  God.  But  the  Roman  Empire  was  an 
earthly  one.  Its  power  was  from  below.  Its 
government  was  only  regulative.  The  Chris- 
tian Church  was  the  kingdom  of  heaven  upon 
earth.  Its  power  was  from  Christ,  the  Head 
of  that  kingdom,  a  power  from  above.  Its 
officers  were  much  more  than  magistrates 
to  regulate.  They  "  ministered  the  Holy 
Ghost."  They  were  the  organs  of  Christ's  glor- 
ified Body  extending  itself  by  spiritual  power. 
S.  Paul  speaks  of  that  Body  as  being  so  trans- 
formed as  to  "  fill  all  things,"  and  as  a  result  of 


lO  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE    CHURCH. 

this  transformation,  "  He  gave  some,  apostles; 
and  some,  prophets;  and  some,  evangelists;  and 
some  pastors  and  teachers;  for  the  perfecting 
of  the  saints,  unto  the  work  of  ministering, 
unto  the  building  up  of  the  Body  of  Christ ; 
till  we  all  attain  unto  the  unity  of  the  faith  and 
of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a 
full-grown  man,  unto  the  measure  of  the  stat- 
ure of  the  fulness  of  Christ"  (Eph.  iv.  11-14). 
The  river  of  the  water  of  life,  which  makes  glad 
the  heavenly  City,  began  to  pour  its  qincken- 
ing  tide  into  the  reservoirs  of  imperial  lifeless- 
ness.  Thus  was  carried  out  the  great  commis- 
sion of  the  One  High  Priest  and  Apostle  of  our 
profession.  "  As  My  Father  has  commissioned 
Me,  so  send  I  you."  Our  Lord  sent  forth  His 
Apostles  to  execute  the  commission  which  He 
had  Himself  received,  of  establishing  the  king- 
dom of  grace  as  a  corporate  organism  coex- 
tensive with  the  population  of  the  earth,  the 
Church  Catholic.  He  announced  Himself  at 
the  outset,  saying,  "  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is 
upon  me,  because  He  hath  anointed  me  "  (Luke 
iv.  18).  He  sends  forth  His  Apostles  in  like 
manner,  saying,  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost." 
He  promised  to  be  with  them  by  the  personal 
co-operation  of  this  His  consubstantial  Spirit 
unto  the  end  of  the  world  (Matt,  xxviii.  20).  The 
ministry  of  the  Spirit  therefore  cannot  lose  any 


ORGANIZATION  OF   THE    CHURCH.  II 

of  its  original  power,  for  the  mission  of  tlie 
Church  is  but  the  extension  of  the  commission 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

The  Roman  Empire,  with  its  careful  munici- 
pal arrangements,  was  as  a  thirsty  land  marked 
out  by  conduits  and  pits,  an  Egypt  waiting  for 
a  mightier  Nile  to  overflow.  And  now  the 
supernatural  waters  of  grace  are  come !  A 
sudden  outpouring  from  the  heavenly  hills ! 
The  waters  of  the  baptismal  covenant  turn  the 
very  stones  to  life.  See  the  desert  of  human- 
ity blossoming  as  the  garden  of  the  Lord !  See 
the  ministry  of  grace  taking  possession  of  the 
cities  of  the  Empire  in  the  Name,  the  Power, 
the  Spirit  of  Christ.* 

*  "  Another  division  of  the  Roman  Empire  was  into  provinces 
and  dioceses.  A  province  was  the  cities  of  a  whole  region  sub- 
jected to  the  authority  of  one  chief  magistrate,  who  resided  in  the 
metropolis  or  chief  city  of  the  province.  This  was  commonly  a 
prcctor  ox  proconsul,  or  some  magistrate  of  the  like  eminence  and 
dignity.  A  diocese  was  still  a  larger  district — [let  me  call  your  at- 
tention to  the  difference  between  the  ancient  use  of  the  word  di- 
ocese, and  our  modern  use  of  the  same  title.  It  was  the  larger, 
it  is  now  the  smaller,  combination  of  ecclesiastical  ministries]  — 
containing  several  provinces  within  the  compass  of  it  ;  in  the 
capital  city  of  which  district  a  more  general  magistrate  had  his 
residence,  whose  power  extended  over  the  whole  diocese  to  receive 
appeals  and  determine  all  causes  that  were  referred  to  him  for  a  new 
hearing  from  any  city  within  the  district.  And  this  magistrate 
was  sometimes  called  an  cparchus  or  vicariiis  of  tlie  Roman  Em- 
pire.    .       .       .       The  division  into  dioceses  began  only  about  the 


12  ORGANIZATION   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

The  Catholic  Church,  says  Gibbon  (C.  20)  was 
administered  by  the  spiritual  and  legal  juris- 
diction of  eighteen  hundred  Bishops,  of  whom 
one  thousand  were  seated  in  the  Greek  and 
eight  hundred  in  the  Latin  Provinces  of  the 
Empire. 

This  vast  organization  was  held  together,  not 
by  the  grasp  of  an  individual,  as  the  civil  re- 
lations were  sustained  by  a  central  government, 
but  by  the  inherence  of  a  vital  power  operative 
throughout  the  whole.  The  Holy  Ghost  in- 
dwelt them  all.  This  Empire  had  life,  and  life 
is  a  circulation  of  energy  which  binds  together 
many  individuals  with  reciprocal  interests  in 
common  activity  and  conscious  fellowship.  As 
there  could  be  no  individual  Christian  who  did 
not  belong  to  a  Church,  so  there  could  be  no 
individual  Church  which  did  not  belong  to  the 
One,  indivisible,  Catholic  Church. 

Let  us  go  on  to  consider  how  this  life  acted. 

The  Dioceses,  as  the  elementary  units  of  the 
Church  Empire,  were  assembled  in  Provincial 
Councils.     This  was  the  law  of  life.     So  it  was 

time  of  Constantine.  But  the  caiitonizing  of  the  Empire  valo  pro- 
vinces was  long  before  ;  by  some  referred  to  Vespasian,  by  others 
reckoned  still  more  ancient  and  coeval  with  the  first  establishment 
of  the  Christian  Church." — Bingham,  ix.,  §  3. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE   CHURCH.  13 

ordained  by  the  Apostolical  Canons  (C.  38), 
which  date  from  the  second  century,  that  Coun- 
cils should  be  held  twice  in  each  year. 

Care  was  thus  taken  to  obviate  the  exclusion 
of  anyone  from  the  Church  by  party  spirit, 
^i\ov€LKia,  or  narrowmindedness,  fiiKpo'xjrvxt'a;  or 
personal  dislike,  ar^hia. 

"  The  Bishops  of  each  nation  ought  to  know  who  among 
them  is  accounted  the  first,  whom  they  should  regard  as  a 
head,  and  do  nothing  of  unusual  importance  without  his  judg- 
ment. But  each  must  do  only  those  things  which  belong  to 
his  own  Parish  [Diocese]  and  the  country  districts  under  him. 
But  let  not  even  him  (the  Metropolitan)  do  anything  with- 
out the  judgment  of  all,  for  so  there  shall  be  concord  and 
God  shall  be  glorified  through  our  Lord  in  the  Holy  Ghost." 

This  Canon  is  quoted  as  "  an  ancient  Canon 
of  our  Fathers,"  by  the  Council  of  Antioch,  a.d. 
349  (Can.  9),  and  is  plainly  an  evidence  of  the 
corporate  action  of  the  Church  from  the  earliest 
times  in  her  national  and  local  aspects,  without 
any  centralization  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  and 
even  before  the  formation  of  the  three  great 
Patriarchates. 

Churches  multiply  throughout  the  world,  but 
all  are  one.  All  drink  into  one  Spirit,  by  fellow- 
ship with  the  living  Body  of  Christ  into  which 
they  are  assumed. 

In  accordance   with   this   principle,    S.   Paul 


14  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE   CHURCH.    . 

left  Titus  in  Crete  to  establish  elders  in  every 
city  {jcwra  irokiv).  Such  were  the  bishops,  the 
overseers  or  inspectors  of  the  Church  at 
Philippi.  "  With  the  opening  of  a  second  cen- 
tury a  new  phraseology  began."  (Lightfoot  on 
Phil.,  p.  98).  "  Elders  "  and  "  Bishops  "  came  to 
designate  different  orders.  The  phraseology  was 
changed,  but  the  form  of  government,  the  living 
fact,  remained  the  same.  The  city  became  a 
Bishopric,  and  the  groups  of  cities,  as  they  were 
combined  for  purposes  of  state,  became  also 
Provinces  of  the  Church. 

Bingham  enumerates  the  civil  divisions  of 
the  Empire  and  adds,  "  It  is  very  plain  that  the 
Church  took  her  model  in  setting  up  Metro- 
political  and  Patriarchal  power  from  this  plan  of 
the  State."  This  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that 
the  Church  did  not  recognize  Jerusalem  as  a 
Patriarchate  for  a  long  time,  but  this,  the  nat- 
ural Mother  See  of  Christendom,  was  subject 
to  Caesarea.  The  Fathers  of  Constantinople 
were  right  when  they  attributed  the  primacy 
of  Rome  to  civil,  and  not  to  spiritual,  antece- 
dents. 

The  Bishop  could  not  be  elected  to  his  see 
without  the  approbation  of  his  neighbors,  three 
of  whom  must  take  part  in  his  consecration. 
The  Metropolitan  possessed  a  veto,  and  an  ap- 
peal could  be  made  without  difficulty  to   the 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE    CHURCH.  I  5 

Court  of  the  Metropolitan,  to  remedy  any  mis- 
carriage of  justice  in  the  exercise  of  discipline. 

The  people  of  the  Diocese  assented  to  the 
election,  and  could  bring  forward  any  accusa- 
tion, if  such  there  were,  against  the  moral  char- 
acter of  their  elected  ruler. 

The  head  of  the  Diocese  was  thus  indeed 
the  spiritual  father  of  his  people  and  their  true 
and  adequate  representative  in  whatever  Coun- 
cils might  be  called. 

It  Was  a  wondrous  empire  of  love,  contrast- 
ing ever}'  way  with  the  brute  violence .  of  mili- 
tary usurpation.  The  Spiritual  Body  was  up- 
held in  living  unity.  Foul  ulcers  might  disfig- 
ure it,  but  it  had  a  recuperative  vitality.  The 
oneness  of  the  Body  was  felt  by  all  alike.  Men 
might  strive  for  mastery  in  wicked  ways,  but 
the  intensity  of  their  strife  showed  the  power- 
ful hold  of  organic  unity  which  they  could  not 
ignore. 

This  community  of  life  gave  each  an  inter- 
est in  all.  To  suffer  and  rejoice  with  one  an- 
other is  the  law  which  governs  all  the  mem- 
bers of  Christ's  Body.  We  cannot  really  gain  a 
healthy  condition  by  ourselves.  Easy  going  in- 
difference does  not  bring  health.  There  must 
be  active  unity  through  every  part. 

In  reading  of  early  times  our  wonder  is  ex- 
cited not  only  at  the  wide  spread  of  the  Chris- 


1 6  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE   CHURCH. 

tian  Church,  as  TertiiUian  describes  it,  pene- 
trating all  society,  and  conquering  where 
Roman  legions  never  trod,  but  also  at  the  fre- 
quency of  communication,  and  the  quickness  of 
interest,  which  showed  that  Christians  were  one 
in  the  life  of  grace  and  the  hope  of  the  Gospel 
which  they  heard  to  be  in  their  brethren,  al- 
though they  had  never  seen  their  face  in  the 
flesh.  There  was  a  Divine  electricity  in  Chris- 
tian love  which  might  well  disregard  all 
earthly  distances,  since  the  Catholic  Church  in 
every  .part  of  the  world  energized  with  that 
Almighty  Spirit  Who  bound  them  in  unity,  lift- 
ing them  up  together  to  dwell  with  Jesus  in 
the  reality  of  life  at  the  Right  Hand  of  God. 

Such  was  the  normal  condition  of  Christen- 
dom, and  to  fail  of  it  is  to  be  dead.  No  indi- 
vidual lived  for  himself,  for  there  could  be  no 
individual  life  apart  from  the  Body.  The 
martyr  lived  to  die — he  died  to  live — in  the  joy- 
ous omnipotence  of  the  Communion  of  Saints. 

In  such  a  state  of  things  the  meeting  to- 
gether of  Bishops  in  Council  was  no  mere  re- 
sult of  occasional  necessity.  It  was  the  hab- 
itual expression  of  unchanging  faith. 

Each  Bishop  felt  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  entrusted  to  himself  for  the  strength- 
ening of  his  flock,  but  he  felt  its  individuality  all 
the  more  because  he  felt  it  as  the  all-pervading, 


ORGANIZATIO.V  OF  THE    CHURCH.  1/ 

all-inspiring  breath  of  Christendom,  fulfilling 
the  promise  of  Christ's  effectual  presence  where 
two  or  three  should  be  gathered  together  in 
His  Name.  The  great  principle  of  corporate 
Church  Life  is  equally  violated,  whether  the 
community  of  the  faithful  be  petrified  under 
the  wintry  congelation  of  an  absolute  mon- 
archy, or  pulverized  into  the  cloudy  helpless- 
ness of  disconnected  atoms. 

Although  no  Bishop  could  interfere  within  the 
Diocese  of  another,  yet  no  Bishop  could  act  alone 
without  the  concurrence  of  his  comprovincials. 

The  small  limits  of  an  ancient  Diocese  did 
not  ordinarily  give  scope  for  such  legislative 
enterprise  as  a  Bishop  of  high,  Hildebrandine 
genius  might  initiate.  The  larger  combina- 
tions of  Provinces  had  not  only  extension,  but 
consideration,  efficiency,  and  permanence. 

The  Dioceses  were  small,  but  the  people 
were  interested  in  the  Province  as  a  larger 
unit.  Frequent  conference  for  local  action  was 
a  guide  to  the  energy,  and  a  check  to  the  slug- 
gishness, of  any  one  prelate.  It  maintained 
unity  of  aim,  and  stimulated  practical  endeavor, 
and  thus  the  supernatural  hope  of  the  indi- 
vidual Christian  was  fostered  by  the  vital  effi- 
ciency of  the  Body,  making  increase  of  itself 
in  love. 

The  Bishop  was  not  an  authority   removed 

2 


l8  ORGANIZATION  OF   THE    CHURCH. 

by  multiplicity  of  conflicting  duties  from  per- 
sonal intimacy  with  the  separate  members  of  his 
flock.  He  was  not  lifted  up  into  an  isolation  in 
which  the  suspicions  of  class  feeling  and  the 
misrepresentations  of  party  spirit  were  con- 
stantly endangering  the  moral  influence  which 
was  his  due.  He  did  not  need  committees  of 
priests  or  laymen  to  guard  the  supposed  rights 
of  a  supposed  opposition.  As  Dean  Stanley 
says,  "  The  Bishops  were  literally  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Christian  communities  over 
which  they  presided."  Yes.  They  were  the 
ministry  of  God's  love  to  the  people.  They 
gathered  up  in  their  one  person  the  love  of 
the  people  toward  God.  There  can  be  in  the 
Church  no  rights  as  of  one  man,  or  of  one 
class  against  another,  no  Bishops'  rights,  no 
priests'  rights,  no  laymen's  rights.  It  is  God 
alone  who  has  eternal  rights.  The  Personality 
which  gathers  up  the  Church  is  indeed  Divine. 
Christ  is  the  Head,  we  are  the  members  of  His 
Bod3^  The  aim  of  each  must  be  the  good  of 
all.     We  suffer  or  rejoice  together. 

That  community  of  interest  which  socialism 
seeks  vainly  to  evoke  from  the  rotting  carcase 
of  humanity,  was  from  the  very  first  the  law  of 
the  Christian  society  regenerated  with  the  life 
of  God.  The  Catholic  Church  is  no  bundle  of 
lifeless,  loveless   units.     It  is  the    Communion 


ORGANIZATION^  OF  THE   CHURCH.  1 9 

of  Saints.  There  is  a  community  of  wisdom 
which  ought  to  regulate  the  administration  of 
the  Church  of  God,  and  that  wisdom  is  only 
to  be  attained  by  love,  by  unity,  by  common 
counsel,  by  the  acknowledgment  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  ready  to  act,  not  sporadically  and  upon 
occasion,  but  at  all  times,  and  through  those 
learitimate  or2:ans  which  He  Himself  has  both 
appointed  and  anointed.  So  did  He,  who  gave 
to  each  individual  Bishop  his  sufficiency  for 
the  immediate  purposes  of  sacramental  life, and 
local  discipline,  act  with  the  Church  in  her  Pro- 
vincial Councils  as  an  Ever-present  Guide. 
Bishop,  priest,  and  layman  felt  the  responsibil- 
ity of  Truth.  With  one  mind  they  strove  to- 
gether for  the  faith  of  the  Gospel. 

It  does  not  seem  a  matter  worth  considera- 
tion whether  the  Councils  of  the  Church  were 
instituted  by  human  or  Divine  authority. 
They  have  anyhow  a  Divine  origin,  for  they 
have  their  origin  in  the  vei-y  nature  of  things. 
The  Church  being  an  indivisible  unit,  a  corpo- 
ration having  an  inherent  vitality  proper  to  it- 
self, it  is  evident  that  the  action  of  the  Church 
must  be  a  combined  and  undivided  action. 
The  acts  of  the  various  portions  of  the  Church 
lack  their  vital  authority  until  they  come 
forth  as  the  action  of  the  whole  Body.  "  There 
is  one  Body  and  one  Spirit  "  (Eph.  iv.  4). 


20  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE    CHURCH. 

It  was  ill  harmony  with  this  idea  that  the 
Apostles  held  their  first  Council  at  Jerusalem ; 
and  that  primary  Council  is  always  taken  as 
supplying  in  some  sort  the  model  after  which 
later  Councils  were  organized.  In  some  sort : 
but  yet  it  must  be  remembered  that  there  are 
some  points  of  great  difference  between  that 
Council  and    later   ones.*     The    Apostles  had 

*  Dr.  Pusey,  in  his  work  upon  the  Councils  calls  our  attention 
to  these  differences. 

"  The  Council  of  Jerusalem  was  infallible.  .  .  .  To  have 
questioned  the  Apostles'  teaching  would  have  been  to  deny  the 
faith,  and  to  destroy  its  foundations.  The  full  inspiration  of 
the  Apostles  was  the  guarantee  of  God  for  the  truth  and  Divinity 
of  the  whole  Faith.  If  the  Apostles  could  have  erred  in  one 
matter  of  faith  thus  solemnly  brought  for  their  decision,  they 
might  have  erred  in  all.  The  people  were  present  at  the  Council 
of  Jerusalem,  but  to  hear  and  to  obey  the  words  of  God  delivered 
through  the  Apostles'  mouth  to  them  and  to  the  whole  Church  of 
God.  True,  they  did  speak  :  they  even  disputed  ;  but  when  ? 
Before  the  Apostles  spoke,  '  certain  of  the  sect  of  tlie  Pharisees 
who  believed '  seem  somewhat  clamorously  to  have  urged  their 
plea.  .  .  .  S.  Luke  says, 'when  there  had  been  much  disput- 
ing.' But  wlien  an  inspired  Apostle  had  spoken,  ^  then,''  S.  Luke 
relates,  '  all  the  multitude  kept  silence  and  gave  audience  to  Bar- 
nabas and  Paul.  .  .  .  Without  that  plenary  inspiration  tlie 
Council  of  Jerusalem  would  have  had  no  authority  to  prescribe 
its  decree.  Of  the  Apostles,  'James,  Cephas  and  John  who 
seemed  to  be  pillars'  were  probably  alone  present  with  Barnabas 
and  Paul.  .  .  .  There  was  no  representation  of  those  ab- 
sent. .  .  .  The  laity  at  Jerusalem  had  no  authority  over  those 
of  Antioch  or  of  the  rest  of  the  Church,  nor  were  they  entitled 
to  accept  the  decree  in  the  name  of  the  rest.      They  had  not  been 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE   CHURCH.  21 

their  individual  infallibilit}'.  The  decree  of  this 
Apostolical  Council  was  of  full  force  by  virtue 
of  such  Apostolical  authority.  It  may  be  ob- 
jected therefore  that  such  infallibility,  residing 
as  it  did  in  the  individual  Apostles,  superseded 
all  necessity  of  a  Council.  So  indeed  it  would 
have  done,  if  Simeon  or  any  other  of  the  Apos- 
tles had  possessed  it  as  a  Divine  privilege  in  a 
higher  degree  than  the  others,  or  in  such  a 
manner  that  their  utterance  would  be  ineffec- 
tual without  his  sanction.  But  in  Jerusalem 
James  was  actual  President  of  this  Council,  and 
Cephas  is  mentioned  in  the  second  place  when 
S.  Paul  enumerates  the  three  pillars  of  the 
Church  in  that  city.  Each  of  the  Apostles  had 
his  own  infallibility,  and  therefore  there  could 
be  no  division  of  opinion  among  them  ;  but  al- 
though the  infallibility  was  complete  in  each, 
it  was  combined  in  all,    and  therefore  no  one 

consulted  by  the  rest.  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  sent  '  to  Jerusa- 
lem unto  the  Apostles  and  Elders  about  this  question.'  '  The 
Apostles  and  Elders  came  together  for  to  consider  of  this  matter.' 
Paul  and  Timothy  gave  to  the  Churches  wliich  they  visited  '  the 
decrees  that  were  ordained  of  the  Apostles  and  Elders  which 
were  at  Jerusalem,  not  to  examine,  nor  to  receive  of  their  own 
mind,  but  'for  to  keep.'  Being  the  result  of  full  inspiration,  it 
forms  no  precedent  at  all  ;  for  the  decree  issued  was  binding  at 
once  upon  all  the  Church,  whereas  the  decrees  of  Councils  obtain 
their  authority  from  their  reception  by  the  Bishops  of  the  whole 
Church." 


22  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE    CHURCH. 

of  them  could  exercise  his  own  gift  in  a  sepa- 
ratist self-sufficiency.  Such  an  act  would  have 
partaken  of  a  schismatical  character.  It  would 
have  been  a  moral  wrong,  a  sacrilege  against 
the  whole  Body,  if  one  of  the  Apostles  had 
undertaken  to  settle  the  dispute  without  seek- 
ing the  concurrence  of  the  rest. 

It  is  noticeable  also  that,  although  Peter  and 
John  were  present,  James  was  the  President  of 
this  Council,  and  this  James  was  probably  not 
one  of  the  original  twelve,  but  was  Our  Lord's 
Brother,  to  whom  Jesus  appeared  after  his  res- 
urrection. He  presided  as  being  Bishop  of  Je- 
rusalem. 

So,  then,  although  the  infallibility  of  Peter  or 
John  individually  could  gain  nothing  fi'om  the 
deliberations  of  a  Council,  yet  it  would  seem  as 
if  they  could  not  exercise  it  by  themselves 
alone.  S.  James,  the  President,  and  the  Eld- 
ers who  disputed,  could  add  no  personal  weight 
to  the  decision  of  those  two.  To  us,  indeed, 
the  authority  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  would  seem 
entirely  to  outweigh  whatever  those  Elders 
might  allege,  but  the  conciliar  action  was 
necessary  in  order  that  the  mind  of  Christ, 
speaking  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  might  have  its 
proper  utterance  through  the  Church. 

There  was,  therefore,  much  dispute  between 
the  Elders  of  the  Church  of  the  Circumcision, 


ORGANIZATION  OF   THE    CHURCH.  23 

and  the  Apostles  of  the  Gentiles.  The  matter 
was  by  this  means  developed  in  its  various 
bearings.  S.  John,  for  ought  we  know,  may 
have  been  a  contemplative  participator  in  the 
deliberation.  S.  Peter,  as  the  head  of  the  Cir- 
cumcision party,  delivered  a  speech  which  is 
recorded,  pronouncing  in  favor  of  Gentile  free- 
dom ;  then  the  discussion  ceased.  Barnabas 
and  Paul  gave  an  account  of  the  upgrowth  of 
Gentile  Christianity,  which  no  doubt  was  a 
wonderful  revelation  to  the  brethren  of  Jerusa- 
lem, far  exceeding  what  any  missionary  report 
in  our  own  day  could  possibly  be  ;  for  it  showed 
not  how  great  was  the  work  of  God  among  the 
Gentiles,  but  it  showed  that  a  community  had 
risen  up  to  the  fulness  of  Christian  life  alto- 
gether apart  from  the  traditions  of  Mosaism. 
It  stirred  their  exultation  not  merely  as  a  mat- 
ter of  degree,  but  as  the  stupendous  disclosure 
of  an  unimagined  reality.  We  can  well  under- 
stand how  this  missionary  report  would  kindle 
and  consume  with  the  flames  of  holy  gratitude 
the  loose  shavings  of  carnal  prejudice  whose 
litter  might  still  be  choking  up  the  minds  of 
the  Jewish  party.  S.  James  then,  as  President, 
gave  the  decision  to  which  all  assented.  The 
laity  who  listened  had  taken  no  part  in  the  dis- 
cussion, but  probably  they  joined  in  the  practi- 
cal execution  of  the  decree,  as  they  may  have 


24  ORGANIZATIOM  OF  THE   CHURCH. 

voted  upon  the  election  of  Judas  and  Silas  to 
be  commissioners,  along  with  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas, for  bearing  the  letter  to  the  brethren  at 
Antioch. 

This  Council  was  the  final  historic  act  of  the 
Jewish  Church.  It  is  the  last  occasion  on 
which  S.  Peter  is  mentioned  in  the  Acts.  At 
Antioch  the  faithful  had  already  assumed  the 
name  of  Christians.  The  Church  now  could 
rejoice  in  her  Catholicity,  the  blessedness  of 
that  name  which  is  as  ointment  poured  forth, 
the  glorious  liberty  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 
When  S.  Peter  afterward  came  to  Antioch,  we 
know  how  he  was  led  into  a  breach,  not  of  the 
letter  of  this  decree  nor  of  the  doctrine  which 
it  involved,  but  of  its  spirit ;  and  he  submitted 
to  the  rebuke  of  the  young  and  impetuous 
leader  whom  he,  by  his  own  speech  at  the  Apos- 
tolical Council  had  supported.  From  the  chair 
of  Antioch  he  supervised  the  Jewish  Christians, 
visiting,  in  all  probability,  the  large  community 
at  Babylon.  The  schools  at  Edessa  and  Nisibis 
were  probably  developed  under  his  influence. 
Their  writers  seem  to  belong  to  the  Petrine 
family.  From  Babylon  he  wrote  to  the  stran- 
gers, the  Jews  sojourning  abroad,  scattered 
throughout  Asia  Minor,  and  in  the  last  year 
of  his  life  the  two  Apostles  who  were  pres- 
ent at  this   Council  met  for  the   last  time  on 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE   CHURCH.  2$ 

earth,  being  joined  together  in  martyrdom  at 
Rome. 

How  glorious  was  that  junction  in  martyr- 
dom of  the  Jewish  Christian  Church,  which  was 
to  pass  away,  and  the  Gentile  Church,  which 
was  to  continue  to  the  end.  It  is  interesting 
for  us  now  to  follow  these  events,  because  they 
serve  to  exemplify  what  ought  to  be  the  result 
of  a  Council  conducted  by  men  of  God,  who 
knew  that  they  were  acting  under  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Hebrew  Church 
saw  that  the  Gospel  of  the  uncircumcision  was 
committed  unto  Paul  as  the  Gospel  of  the  cir- 
cumcision was  unto  Peter,  for  the  missionary 
report  delivered  to  them  showed  that  he  that 
wrought  effectually  in  Peter  to  the  apostleship 
of  the  circumcision,  the  same  was  mighty  in  the 
junior  Apostle  toward  the  Gentiles.  All  was 
done  in  the  Spirit  of  God.  All  was  done  to  the 
glory  of  God.  The  petals  of  Catholic  Chris- 
tianity developed  out  of  the  calyx  of  the  Mother 
Church  at  Jerusalem.  Even  an  Apostle  who 
had  taken  part  in  the  discussion  felt  the  power 
of  the  decree.  The  Church  that  should  be  co- 
extensive with  humanity  expanded  from  the 
limitations  of  her  Pentecostal  infancy  without 
injury  to  her  organic  power  or  forfeiture  of  her 
heavenly  faith. 

Would  that  all  Councils  afterward  had  been 


26  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE   CHURCH. 

conducted  in  the  same  spirit  and  had  produced 
similar  fruits  of  love.  But  what,  though  the 
human  element  in  the  Church  came  too  strong- 
ly forward  at  most  times,  nevertheless  Councils 
still  issued  their  decrees  with  the  formula,  "  It 
seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us." 
The  Presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  assured  to 
them  by  the  words  of  Christ,  who  had  promised 
to  be  with  His  Church  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
He  was  still  in  the  midst  of  them  by  the  con- 
trolling power  of  His  Holy  Spirit.  That  Pres- 
ence, however,  was  not  to  supersede  the  moral 
requirements  of  human  subordination.  The 
Holy  Ghost  did  not  transfer  to  the  members  of 
the  Council  His  own  perfect  wisdom  as  an  in- 
fallible charm.  No,  He  gave  it  to  them  as  an 
unfailing  inspiration  whose  truth  should  be  ap- 
parent, according  to  the  measure  in  which  they 
sought  it.  And  His  Divine  Person  helping 
them  to  speak,  did  not  lose  His  own  reality 
by  any  fusion  with  the  human  agents  in  whom 
He  dwelt.  Sorely  has  that  Blessed  Spirit  been 
grieved  by  the  carnal  passions,  the  strife  and 
debate  of  human  reason,  which  have  profaned 
His  sanctuary.  Nevertheless,  by  His  secret 
overruling  power  He  has  made  even  the  worst 
of  men  subservient  to  His  glorious  purpose  of 
building  up  the  Body  of  Christ.  Indeed,  it  is 
this     contrariety    between    His    Presence    and 


ORGANIZATION  OF   THE    CHURCH.  2"] 

man's  wilfulness,  between  man's  vehemence 
foaming  with  fruitless  excitement  and  His  own 
Divine  calmness  accomplishing  the  predestina- 
tion of  Eternal  Love,  which  makes  it  so  special- 
ly manifest  that  the  triumph  of  God's  Truth  has 
not  been  the  result  of  human  skill,  but  purely 
and  simply  the  work  of  God. 

Think  of  a  Council  meeting  together  to  delib- 
erate. 

The  Holy  Scriptures  were  ordinarily  placed 
in  the  centre,  and  the  members  of  the  Council 
sat  in  a  circle  around.  Of  course,  in  a  Provin- 
cial Council  the  Metropolitan  would  preside, 
and  in  a  Council  of  a  Patriarchate,  which  was 
called  a  national,  general,  universal  Council,  or  a 
conciliuin  rcgionis,  the  Patriarch  would  naturally 
do  the  same.  When  the  Council  included  more 
than  one  Patriarchate,  so  as  to  be  in  any  sense 
QEcumenical,  we  might  expect  that  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  as  the  chief  bishop  of  Christendom, 
would  occupy  that  position.  This  would  not 
imply  anything  more  than  that  primacy  of 
honor  which  was  confessedly  his  due.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  however,  he  was  never  present 
at  any  of  the  CEcumenical  Councils.  His  iso- 
lated position  caused  him  to  be  outside  of  East- 
ern struggles,  in  which,  probably,  the  difference 
of  language  made  him  personally  loath  to  join. 


28  ORGANIZATION  OF   THE   CHURCH. 

At  Nicasa  he  pleaded  old  age  for  non-attend- 
ance, but  it  is  evident  that  Constantine  could 
not  have  summoned  the  meeting  without  his 
consent,  whoever  may  have  originated  the  idea. 
Hosius  signed  first,  whether  by  right  of  age,  or 
as  the  Emperor's  trusted  counsellor,  or  as  repre- 
senting the  Pope.  Anyhow,  the  Presbyters  who 
represented  Silvester  signed  as  possessing,  next 
to  Hosius  the  precedence  in  the  council,  for  Pres- 
byters signed,  if  they  signed  at  all,  in  the  order 
which  belonged  to  the  Bishop  whom  they  repre- 
sented. It  was  only  Bishops  who  had  the  right 
of  voting. 

The  relation  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  to  the 
(Ecumenical  Councils  and  to  the  numerous 
Councils  of  the  first  five  centuries,  shows  perhaps 
more  convincingly  than  any  positive  statement 
could  do,  that  the  primacy  of  the  Roman  See 
was  then  only  a  primacy  of  honor.  Constantly 
did  large  assemblies  of  Bishops  meet,  deliberate, 
and  pass  Canons  according  to  their  needs  with- 
out reference  to  him.  They  sent  their  decrees 
to  him  as  to  other  Bishops,  for  information,  not 
for  sanction. 

His  remoteness  was  indeed  a  source  of  grow- 
ing strength  to  him.  Probably  he  was  glad  to 
keep  away  from  the  Councils,  feeling  that  his 
presence  might  have  tended  to  diminish  that 
respectful  demeanor  which  his  absence  insured. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE   CHURCH.  29 

Speaking  the  language  of  the  government,  and 
dwelling  amidst  other  immediate  interests,  with 
all  the  dignity  of  the  ancient  and  imperial  city, 
he  was  gradually  becoming  more  and  more  con- 
scious of  his  power  as  a  referee ;  while  the 
other  Patriarchs  spoke  the  Greek  tongue,  and 
were  drawing  their  swords  in  hand  to  hand 
fight  against  upstart  exponents  of  prolific  Ori- 
ental speculation. 

We  find  S.  Basil,  of  Ceesarea,  complaining  of 
"  the  western  pride"  which  held  Pope  Damasus 
back  from  showing  such  brotherly  sympathy  as 
was  demanded  by  the  Eastern  Church,  though 
he  applied  for  it  again  and  again  when  he  was 
in  the  thick  of  the  troubles  of  Arianism.  A 
haughty  self-assertion  was  too  apt  to  be  a  grow- 
ing element  in  such  communications  as  were 
vouchsafed  upon  occasion  from  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  to  his  brethren  in  the  East ;  but  his  inter- 
ference with  their  procedure,  even  if  couched  in 
a  harmless  exaggeration  of  self-importance,  did 
not  carry  with  it  any  obligatory  power,  and  the 
Eastern  Patriarchs  were  glad  of  the  quiet  rein- 
forcement which  they  gained  from  the  Apostolic 
See  of  the  West,  especially  when  clothed  in 
such  a  magnificent  document  as  the  Tome  of 
S.  Leo,  which,  although  nominally  addressed  to 
Flavian,  the  Fathers  of  Chalcedon  examined 
first  and  then  approved. 


30  ORGAJVIZATION-  OF  THE   CHURCH. 

Constantine  may  have  originated  the  idea  of 
an  CEcumenical  Council,  or  Hosius  may  have 
suggested  it.  Anyhow,  the  Council,  when  once 
summoned,  was  the  mouthpiece  of  heaven  by 
which  the  Emperor,  although  not  yet  himself 
altogether  a  Christian,  sought  to  obtain  the 
complete  and  authoritative  utterance  of  the 
Christian  Church.  That  Church  was  now  as- 
suming tangible  shape.  He  was  welcoming  the 
Church  to  power  as  an  imperial  governor  rath- 
er than  as  a  penitent.  Occupying  an  external 
position  like  the  Procurator  of  old,  but  having 
a  very  different  interest  at  heart,  he  wanted  to 
gain  an  answer  to  that  question  which  Pilate 
was  content  to  leave  unanswered  —  What  is 
Truth? 

Yet  was  the  meeting  more  than  he  was  pre- 
pared for. 

Can  we  realize  the  intensity  of  his  feelings 
when,  leaving  his  heathen  soldiery  outside,  he 
entered  alone  into  the  hall  of  meeting? 

Attired  in  gorgeousness  of  jewelled  wealth,  in 
all  the  buoyancy  of  youth,  the  pride  of  power, 
the  self-sufficient  exuberance  of  autocratic  sove- 
reignty, in  the  first  freshness  of  its  acquisition, 
he  finds  himself  face  to  face  with  a  presence 
before  which  all  dazzling  brilliancy  grows  pale. 
Never  has  human  being  met  such  a  concen- 
trated manifestation  of  Divine  endurance.     He 


ORGANIZATION  OF   THE    CHURCH.  3 1 

looks  around.     What  are  the  thoughts  which 
fill  his  heart?     He  bows  before  the  victory  of 
Heaven.     This  great  assembly,  gathered  from 
all  lands,  tells  of  a  triumph   which  has  made 
death  itself  succumb.     The  martyrs  did  not  die. 
They  live  in  these  their  offspring.     The  eyes  of 
this  young    monarch  gaze  into  the  depths  of 
spirit  life,  and  from  an  atmosphere  red  with  the 
living  blood  that  God  has  blest,  memory  calls 
up  the  consciousness   of   countless  hosts   that 
people  the  hall  of  audience.     The  forms  before 
him  are  mantled  with  the  radiance  of  this  an- 
cestral glory.     Maimed,  crippled,  scarred  sur- 
vivors  of    the    long    conflict    with    the  world, 
they  testify  to  the  immortality  of  faith.     The 
King  of  martyrs  from  His  heavenly  throne  in- 
vests  with  His  own  imperishable  lustre  these 
scarred  witnesses.    Do  not  their  wounds  breathe, 
as  from  lips  of  fire,  the  supernatural  virtue  sur- 
passing  all  words,  perpetuating   the   adorable 
Passion  of  the  Incarnate  God? 

Const-antine  learns  the  littleness  of  all  that 
men  may  strive  for.  All  glory  of  material  con- 
quest vanishes  into  thin  air  before  the  substan- 
tive reality  of  the  kingdom  of  grace.  He  has 
measured  strength  of  army  with  army,  and  has 
conquered  ;  but  boast  of  momentary  exultation 
can  never  equal  the  thrilling  ecstasy  of  wonder 
at  his  own  nothingness  which  comes  from  feel- 


32  ORGAr<fIZATION  OF  THE   CHURCH. 

ing  that  now  heaven  has  conquered  himself. 
The  submission  of  gratitude  is  ennobling.  The 
prostration  of  true  reverence  deifies  the  soul 
that  it  annihilates.  An  awful  sense  takes  pos- 
session of  him.  The  light  of  mystery,  the  ma- 
jesty of  faith,  the  consciousness  of  a  strange 
realm  of  truth  ; — this  new  experience  lifts  him 
high  to  commune  with  eternal  life  and  bless  the 
heritage  of  immortality. 

Obedient  to  his  call,  but  robed  as  with  the 
omnipotence  of  heaven,  these  forms  of  sanctity 
rise  up  to  greet  him.  His  subjects  and  his 
masters !  It  was  no  idle  boast  with  which  the 
Church  laughed  to  scorn  the  tyranny  of  his 
predecessors,  brutal  and  diabolical,  but  incapa- 
ble of  arresting  the  progress  of  that  which  was 
Divine.  He  pauses  ;  he  thinks  of  that  which 
has  passed  away.  A  stormy  night  has  come  to 
end.  The  silence  of  this  moment  of  transition 
hushes  him.  Great  hearts  delight  in  that  which 
is  greater  than  themselves.  Better  than  vic- 
tory is  such  a  vision  of  the  invincible. 

Memory  bows  to  the  past.  What  of  the 
future  ?  Can  hope  portray  the  destiny  which 
seems  to  be  taking  outward  form  in  obedience 
to  his  summons?  He  looks  forward.  No  po- 
litical presentiment  can  delineate  the  future  of 
this  assembly.  No  spiritual  aspiration  can  an- 
ticipate its  consequences.     As  one  who,  stand- 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE    CHURCH.  33 

ing  on  a  mountain  summit,  sees  the  dark  veil  of 
night  lifted  up  from  the  vast  plain  below,  he 
looks  forward  to  all  future  time,  and  contem- 
plates the  boundless  expanse  before  him,  and 
the  splendor  of  a  day  without  end. 

He  sees  the  saints  bearing  the  wounds  of 
earth.  He  is  caught  up  in  rapturous  sympathy 
of  their  royal  welcome  from  the  King  of  Kings. 
Jesus,  the  Crucified,  is  here  in  His  suffering  peo- 
ple. As  Constantine  enters  the  hall,  it  is  as 
though  he  entered  into  the  cloud  of  the  Trans- 
figuration. He  stands  spell-bound.  With  the 
consciousness  of  being  ushered  into  another 
world,  he  waits  until  the  venerable  Council 
motion  to  him  that  he  should  take  his  seat. 
The  Kingdom  of  the  Truth  is  here.  He  feels 
himself  to  be  indeed  in  the  very  presence  of 
God. 

As  the  discussions  of  the  Council  proceeded, 
Constantine  took  an  active  and  intelligent  part 
in  them.  Nevertheless,  he  and  his  successors, 
if  they  came  to  the  Councils,  were  there  not  to 
preside  but  to  learn. 


The  (Ecumenical  Councils  were  the  crowning 
exhibition  of  that  consultative  habit  which  had 
been  all  along  the  distinguishing  mark  of  the 
Christian  religion. 

The  Diocesan  Synod  in  which  the  Bishop  in- 
3 


34  ORGANIZATION   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

formed  himself  as  to  the  mind  of  his  clergy  be- 
fore issuing  his  commands,  the  Provincial  Coun- 
cil of  many  neighboring  Bishops,  the  General 
Council  of  one  or  more  Patriarchates — all  these 
initiated  a  law  for  the  determination  of  doubts. 

Already  Constantine  had  had  experience  of 
such  a  gathering  when  the  African  Donatists 
had  appealed  from  the  decision  of  a  Council  of 
nineteen  Bishops  held  under  Miltiades,  Bishop 
of  Rome,  in  conjunction  with  Merocles,  Bishop 
of  Milan,  both  of  whom  were  appointed  by  Con- 
stantine to  investigate  the  complaint  against 
CcKcilian  of  Carthage. 

From  this  Roman  decision  Donatus  was  still 
allowed  to  appeal,  and  the  result  was  the  Coun- 
cil of  Aries,  in  A.D.  314.  This  Council  led  on 
almost  naturally  to  the  eventual  convocation  of 
the  Church  Universal.  Probably  but  for  this 
the  Fathers  might  never  have  been  summoned 
to  Niceea. 

The  Council  of  Aries !  This  Council  has  a 
special  interest  for  us.  Three  British  Bishops 
took  part  in  it,  to  hear  an  appeal  from  the 
Roman  decision.  Apparently  they  were  the 
three  Archbishops  presiding  over  the  differ- 
ent portions  of  the  island,  with  many  Bishops 
under  them. 

The  Council  of  Aries  is  often  regarded  as  a 


ORGANIZATION-  OF   THE    CHURCH  35 

Council  of  the  Western  Patriarchate.  The 
presence  of  these  British  Bishops  shows  that  it 
was  something  more.  It  was  summoned,  not 
by  the  Pope  as  Patriarch,  but  by  the  Emperor 
himself,  to  review  the  action  of  the  Pope ;  and 
the  British  Bishops  were  summoned,  not  as  be- 
lone-ine  to  the  Roman  Patriarchate,  but  as  an 
autonomous  portion  of  the  Body  of  Christ. 
Had  they  been  summoned  otherwise,  their  suc- 
cessors never  could  have  assumed  their  well- 
known  attitude  in  repudiation  of  Augustine's 
claim.  Their  disregard  of  the  superiority  as- 
serted for  the  Roman  Pontiff  did  not  result 
from  ignorance  because  their  island  home  was 
so  remote,  but  it  expressed  an  historical  con- 
sciousness that  an  Italian  decision  had  been  re- 
viewed by  their  ancestors  in  the  faith.  Eborius, 
of  York,  Restitutus,  of  London,  and  Adelphius, 
probably  from  Caerleon  on  Usk,  are  witnesses 
to  the  antiquity  of  our  national  Christianity. 

Just  consider  too  :  How  did  Constantine  come 
to  summon  them  to  this  Council?  Doubtless 
because  his  residence  at  York,  where  Eborius 
would  naturally  be  his  personal  friend,  had  fa- 
miliarized him  with  that  ancient  British  Church. 

The  Pope's  legates  were  present  at  the  Coun- 
cil, but  did  not  preside  as  his  representatives, 
which  would  naturally  have  been  expected. 
Why    not?     Hefele    himself   notices   that   the 


36  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE    CHURCH. 

order  of  signatures  indicates  the  order  of  pre- 
cedence, but  this  Council  of  Aries  gives  an  ex- 
ception to  the  rule,  for  the  Pope's  legates  signed 
only  after  several  Bishops,  while  in  all  other 
Councils,  and  even  in  the  Eastern,  the  legates 
signed  first  (Introd.,  §  ii).  The  reason  is  evi- 
dent. The  Council  of  Aries  was  hearing  an 
appeal  from  the  judgment  of  the  Pope. 

We  find  our  British  Bishops  again  at  the 
Council  of  Ariminum.  They  were  poor  in 
worldly  goods,  and  therefore  obliged  to  accept 
the  support  of  the  Emperor,  which  the  wealth- 
ier Bishops  of  Gaul  were  able  to  decline ;  but 
they  were  rich  in  faith,  and  therefore,  although 
the  majority  of  the  four  hundred  at  Ariminum 
led  to  a  miserable  result,  these  British  Bishops 
seem  to  have  joined  in  the  letters  sent  from 
France  at  the  time  of  the  reactionary  Council 
of  Ancyra.  S.  Hilary,  who  was  there  in  banish- 
ment, includes  among  his  "  best  beloved  and 
most  blessed  brethren  and  fellow  Bishops  "  to 
whom  he  addresses  his  reply,  the  Bishops  of 
the  Britannic  Provinces. 

As  soon,  then,  as  the  Church  came  to  have 
a  visible  existence  as  a  recognized  power,  a 
spiritual  empire,  it  was  her  conciliar  action 
which  was  the  true  expression  of  her  will. 
No    individual    Patriarch,   however    dignified. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE   CHURCH.  ZJ 

could  impersonate  the  Church.  The  only  Head 
of  the  Church  Universal  is  Christ  Himself, 
and  His  Authority  is  delegated,  not  to  any  in- 
dividual, but  to  the  Apostolic  body  in  its  col- 
lective action.  "  As  My  Father  has  commis- 
sioned Me,  so  send  I  you  ; "  not  one  of  you,  not 
each  of  you,  but  all  of  you  in  the  unity  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

The  Holy  Ghost,  that  other  Comforter  Whom 
He  promised  to  send  when  He  went  away 
unto  the  Father,  is  His  True  Vicar,  His  Per- 
sonal Representative,  coequal,  consubstantial 
with  Himself,  making  the  grace  of  His  Body 
to  abound  toward  all  who  abide  in  His  living 
fellowship. 

That  Spirit  is  the  Life  of  His  glorified  Body, 
and  the  instrument  of  all  His  personal  com- 
munication with  His  members  upon  earth.  That 
Spirit's  Presence  is  the  Personal  Divine  agency 
by  which  those  who  are  partakers  of  His  grace 
are  sustained  in  His  own  truth,  and  sanctified. 
There  is  one  Body,  one  Spirit.  The  Church 
is  the  sphere  of  a  continuous  Divine  inspiration, 
pledged  to  her  by  Christ,  the  Head,  while  she 
acts  in  union  with  Him. 

The  Presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  Divine 
and  infallible,  is  therefore  the  very  life  of  the 
Christian  Church.  We  listen  for  Him  to  speak 
in  all  her  Councils.     Hence  the  formula  already 


38  ORGANIZATION   OF    THE    CHURCH. 

mentioned :   "It    seemed   good    to   the    Holy 
Ghost  and  to  us." 

The  Holy  Ghost  guides  the  Church,  but  He 
does  not  compel.  In  the  Councils  we  must 
acknowledge  His  presence,  however  unworthy 
of  Him  may  be  the  scenes  of  tumult  and  Satanic 
warfare.  Inspiration  does  not  overpower  free 
will,  nor  supersede  the  necessity  of  faithfulness 
in  the  inspired  agent.  He  who  spake  by  the 
Prophets  when  they  uttered  truths,  not  know- 
ing what  they  said,  speaks  in  the  Church  as  a 
Personal  Illuminator,  guiding  into  all  truth 
those  who  will  give  heed  to  Him. 

A  Council  which  acts  in  watchful  subordina- 
tion to  the  Divine  guidance  may  be  sure  of 
being  led  in  the  way  that  is  right.  Its  errors 
arising  from  human  infirmity  will  be  overruled 
for  good.  A  Council  speaking  presumptuously 
cannot  feel  assured  that  the  Holy  Ghost  will 
preclude  all  possibility  of  error.  God  is  pre- 
sent. God  can  make  Himself  manifest  and 
will  do  so,  sooner  or  later.  If  there  be  error 
in  any  particular  Council,  God  will  make  His 
Truth  to  be  victorious  in  the  end. 

But  a  Council  must  be  free  from  the  chi- 
canery of  worldly  politics  and  the  oppression 
of  external  influence. 

The  Spirit  of  God  is  present,  and  yet  those 


ORGANIZATION  OF   THE    CHURCH.  39 

may  err  in  whom  the  Spirit  dwells.  They  do 
not  forfeit  their  authority  by  lacking  infalli- 
bility. The  Council  needs  the  subsequent  ac- 
ceptance of  the  whole  Church  in  order  to  pos- 
sess an  CEcumenical  claim.  Enough  for  us  to 
know  that  a  Council,  if  free,  is  the  authorita- 
tive voice  of  God's  Church.  To  reject  such 
authority  would  be  rebellion  against  God. 

But  then  let  us  also  bear  in  mind  that 
Councils  are  not  summoned  in  order  to  extend 
the  Divine  revelation.  Their  decisions  do  not 
add  to  the  material  of  the  faith.  They  perfect 
its  expression.  Opinions,  reasonings,  exegetical 
inferences  of  a  Council  do  not  claim  necessary 
acceptance.  We  receive  their  decisions  only 
as  witness  to  the  faith  received  by  them  from 
earliest  years.  Christ  never  promised  to  His 
Church  an  infallible  Presence  to  settle  what- 
ever controversies  might  arise,  but  to  bring- 
to  the  remembrance  of  the  Church  whatever 
things  He  Himself  had  taught.  The  Church 
must  follow,  not  force,  the  Spirit's  guidance. 
The  Spirit  will  facilitate,  not  force,  the  Church's 
utterance.  He  will  not  solve  every  riddle  that 
our  curiosity  may  suggest.  When  the  Church 
goes  beyond  His  guidance,  it  is  at  her  own 
peril.  Many  disputes  have  rent  Christendom 
asunder   which    lie   altogether   outside   of   the 


40  ORGANIZATION  OF   THE    CHURClf. 

ancient  body  of  truth.  The  Truth  of  God  re- 
vealed to  the  Church  at  the  beginning  would 
be  absolutely  unaltered,  whether  such  curious 
questions  be  settled  one  way  or  another. 

The  Spirit  of  God  is  not  pledged  to  deter- 
mine points  of  philosophy.  It  must  always 
be  wrong  to  elevate  a  human  opinion  to  the 
rank  of  Divine  dogma.  We  must  not  let  mat- 
ter that  is  unrevealed  blot  the  page  of  revealed 
Truth.  God,  who  gave  the  revelation,  knows 
what  are  the  limits  of  our  understanding.  Our 
pride  is  very  apt  to  busy  itself  about  inquiries 
with  reference  to  Avhich  we  perhaps  could  not 
understand  the  answer,  even  if  it  were  authori- 
tatively given.  We  must  not  let  practices  con- 
sequent upon  human  opinion  mingle  with  that 
worship  which  the  original  revelation  requires. 
Too  often  do  men  fight  about  things  of  which 
the  Apostles  never  dreamed.  Indeed,  when 
we  walk  in  the  sunlight  of  our  own  reason,  it 
often  blinds  us  to  those  vast  constellations  of 
revealed  Truth  beyond  all  earthly  scrutiny, 
from  which  the  eye  of  faith  ought  to  gain  its 
mysterious  illumination.  The  sunlight  of  rea- 
son is  for  earth's  lower  sphere,  and  blinds  us  to 
the  glory  of  the  Lord  from  Heaven. 

Now,  the  great  Councils  never  met  for  the 
purpose  of  adding  new  dogmas  or  determining 


ORGANIZATION'  OF   THE    CHURCH.  ^l 

unsettled  questions.  No  Council,  however  im- 
posing, can  stand  in  the  same  list  with  them,  if 
it  pretends  to  settle  a  point  in  Christian  theol- 
ogy beyond  the  limits  of  the  ancient  faith.  The 
Bishops  of  the  Church  meet  together  to  pro- 
claim what  they  have  received  from  the  begin- 
ning. The  Nicene  Fathers  did  not  put  forth 
any  new  doctrine  when  they  said  that  the  word 
Consubstantial  {ofioovcno'^)  was  the  true  word  to 
express  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Divinity.  By 
this  word  they  made  sure  the  ancient  Creed. 
Practically,  their  consistent  argument  was  this : 
You  cannot  be  Christians,  if  you  do  not  wor- 
ship Christ.  Does  your  phraseology  warrant 
that  worship  ? 

Councils  did  indeed  meet  for  practical  as 
well  as  for  dogmatic  purposes.  They  had  to 
determine  what  is  expedient  under  the  varying 
necessities  of  successive  periods.  In  such  deci- 
sions the  formula  which  they  used  was  always, 
Plactiit,  "  So  it  seems  good  to  us."  In  the  enun- 
ciations of  the  faith,  on  the  contrary,  there  is  no 
exercise  of  moral  judgment.  The  Bishops  had 
then  only  to  testify  to  an  inherited  fact.  The 
formula  therefore  was,  Crcdinms.  "  This  we  be- 
lieve, avrr)  rj  ttictti^;  rcov  irarepcov.  This  is  the 
faith  which  we  have  received  from  our  fathers 
and  must  hand  on  to  our  children."  They  do 
not  say  "  This  is  true,  and  we  require  it  to  be 


42  ORGANIZATION   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

believed  for  the  future,"  but  they  say  "  This  is 
true  and  has  been  believed  from  the  first." 

A  Council  of  the  Church  can  know  no  such 
thing-  as  opportuneness  or  inopportuneness  in 
declaring  Eternal  Truth.  Any  such  suggestion 
of  controversial  policy  betrays  a  heart  that  is 
trembling  because  it  is  untrue  to  its  trust. 
There  never  can  be  a  moment  when  the  Church 
is  not  bound  to  utter,  as  clearly  as  she  can,  the 
unchanging  Truth  of  God.  The  more  inoppor- 
tune it  may  seem  to  be,  the  more  necessary  is 
its  enforcement,  for  it  is  plain  that  men  are 
seeking  to  reject  it.  It  is  sure  of  victory,  for 
God  gives  it  the  guarantee  of  His  living  power. 

It  was  indeed  a  loving  Providence  which 
plunged  the  Church  in  fierce  intellectual  con- 
flict with  subtle  heretics  ere  she  had  got  fully 
clear  from  the  battle-fields  of  idolatry. 

Constantine  was  a  grand  sovereign,  a  grand 
man.  What  his  Christianity  was  we  cannot  say. 
Only  he  listened  to  the  Church  and  was  upon 
the  side  of  truth,  during  his  first,  best  thoughts. 

He  imagined  that  a  firm  faith  could  be  en- 
forced by  a  decree.  He  did  not  know  that  it 
was  the  gift  of  God  and  must  be  tested,  de- 
veloped, sanctified,  by  resistance  to  the  powers 
of  the  world.  His  day  of  bright,  brief  hopes 
closed  in  the  twilight  of  indifference,  while  dark 


ORGANIZATION  OF   THE    CHURCH.  43 

clouds  gathered  over  the  heavens,  relieved  by 
the  fitful  flashes  of  imperial  self-will.  He  had 
sought  at  the  outset  to  claim  the  victory  of  the 
Cross  without  knowing  what  such  an  alliance 
with  Heaven  demanded  from  him. 

Stupendous  consequences  follow  simplest 
acts.  It  was  the  simple  honesty  of  a  large- 
hearted  Ruler  which  inaugurated  the  Qi^cumen- 
ical  Councils.  Of  the  real  Christian  aspect  of 
the  Nicene  Council,  as  enshrining  Divine  prom- 
ises, Constantine  knew  nothing.  His  conscious- 
ness that  the  Holy  Ghost  must  inspire  such  an 
assembly  was  to  him  a  matter  of  feeling,  as  to 
us  of  faith. 

Like  many  of  us,  he  thought  his  work  was 
completed,  before  it  was  even  begun. — Now 
there  will  be  peace ! — He  little  knew  how  peace 
must  be  obtained. 

Most  happily,  peace  did  not  follow.  Had 
courtly  favor  landed  the  Church  in  peace  and 
prosperity,  the  Imperial  authority  would  have 
become  the  stay  of  her  teaching.  That  must 
not  be.  Divine  Truth  can  only  be  valued 
while  we  fight  for  it.  Constantine  obtained  from 
the  Church  the  declaration  of  wdiat  her  faith 
really  was.  His  Son  Constantius,  by  espousing 
the  cause  of  the  Arians,  made  the  Church  speak 
for  herself,  in  enforcing  that  decree,  instead  of 
relying  upon  him.      Had  the  Nicene  faith  been 


44  ORGANIZATION  OF   THE    CHURCH. 

the  Emperor's  faith  in  perpetuity,  we  might 
have  doubted  after  all  whether  it  were  truly 
Divine.  The  bitter  persecution  of  Catholics  by 
the  court  party  in  the  following  reign,  necessi- 
tated further  Councils.  The  Church  had  to 
meet  her  foes,  not  by  individual  wisdom,  but  by 
corporate  action.  In  Councils  she  spoke  again 
and  again,  against  varying  error,  to  maintain 
unchanging  truth. 

Alas !  the  worst  elements  of  human  nature 
were  brought  into  miserable  prominence  amid 
many  half-hearted  decisions,  but  the  unchang- 
ing faith  of  corporate  Christendom,  in  contrast 
with  the  shameful  dodges  of  false  teachers, 
was  felt  in  its  substantive  power.  The  Truth 
triumphed  Divinely  over  the  machinations  of 
clever  men.  The  howl  of  the  heretic  died 
away,  and  the  sweet  song  of  Zion's  faith  is  still 
sung  throughout  the  world. 

The  name  of  Nicaea  is  a  pledge  of  victory. 
This  is  the  victory  that  overcometh  the  world, 
even  our  faith.  One  Body  !  One  Faith  !  It 
suffers  no  alteration,  no  addition. 

The  Church  of  the  nineteenth  century  still 
delights  to  sign  herself  with  the  sign  of  the 
Cross  in  union  with  the  noble  confessors  of 
Christ  who  made  sure  for  her  the  great  Creed 
of  NicEea.  In  so  doing  she  bids  her  people 
pledge  themselves  at  the  Altar  to  bear  the  Cross 


ORGANIZATION  OF   THE    CHURCH.  45 

as  they  boi'e  it,  and  look  forward  to  "  the  life  of 
the  world  to  come  "  where  now  they  reign. 

The  great  Councils  did  not  know  their  own 
importance.  They  preserved  not  merely  the 
truth  as  an  element  of  thought.  They  preserved 
the  Church  from  the  disintegrating  power  of 
individualism,  just  when  the  nations  were  com- 
ing out  of  darkness  into  the  light  of  the  Gospel. 
Carnal  men  drew  back  with  earthly  reasonings 
instead  of  rising  heavenward  in  love.  Illumi- 
nating love  shone  forth,  while  brothers  testified 
of  love  Divine.  Truth,  as  taught  by  the  Church, 
is  no  mere  statement  of  facts  guaranteed  by 
authority.  It  is  a  living  power,  a  Divine  reve- 
lation, a  participation  of  the  Mind  of  Christ,  a 
communication  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  not 
acquired  by  human  research,  nor  vouchsafed  by 
uncertified  inspirations.  The  Church  is  the 
Kingdom  of  the  living  Truth.  By  community 
of  sy nodical  action  she  realizes  the  unity  of  or- 
ganic life.  Sects  may  rise  and  tall,  but  a  fallen 
sect  can  never  rise  again.  A  sect  that  has  been 
split  in  two,  may  regain  a  temporary  cohesion, 
but  it  has  felt  that  it  never  knew  the  unity  of 
life.  Cohesion,  compromise,  co-operation,  are 
not  unity.  Unless  union  has  unity  of  indissolu- 
ble life  for  its  origin,  it  must  have  dissolution, 
death,  decay,  for  its  inevitable  end.     Men  may 


46  ORGANIZATION    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

combine  in  thought,  in  heart,  in  work,  but  life 
alone  can  make  them  one. 

The  Councils  of  the  Church  are  not  the  mere 
expression  of  such  human  combination.  They 
appeal  to  vital  unity.  They  manifest  that  unity 
in  their  results.  In  their  utterance  they  speak 
not  with  the  dead  certainty  of  mathematical 
demonstration,  but  with  the  reverent  joyousness 
of  participating  in  a  common  truth.  This  is 
the  light  of  their  souls.  This  is  the  law  of  their 
worship.  Sects  may  formulate  terms  of  agree- 
ment for  the  future.  Councils  proclaim  what 
has  been  received  from  the  beginning. 

Sad  it  is  that  party  spirit  and  proud  per- 
verseness  mar  the  Body  of  Christ  with  grievous 
antagonisms.  Have  the  Councils  then  lost  their 
power?  No!  The  Church  possesses  a  power  of 
rallying  which  sects  do  not  possess.  Schisms, 
though  deeply  Avounding  the  Body  of  Christ,  do 
not  prevent  the  healthy  reunion  of  those  com- 
munities which  still  retain  the  Apostolic  life. 
Sundered  portions  of  the  body,  if  they  have  any 
life  remaining  at  all,  must  feel  that  they  are 
living  by  the  inherent  presence  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  that  He,  personally  active  in  un- 
failing truth,  is  not  only  their  own  life,  but 
that  He  is  truly  and  equally  the  life  of  those 
portions  of  the  body  from  which  the  bleeding 
sore  of  schism,  longing  to  be  healed,  holds  them 


ORGANIZATION  OF   THE    CHURCH.  47 

for  a  time  apart.  In  the  Councils  of  undivided 
Christendom  they  hear  the  voice  of  their  com- 
mon ancestry. 

Alas !  for  many  a  century,  Churches  as  well 
as  individual  men  have  sought  their  own,  not 
the  thino-s  which  are  Jesus  Christ's.  The 
Church  has  been  enfeebled  because  she  could 
not  come  forward  in  her  corporate  action.  This 
is  her  need.  This  can,  and  this  alone  can,  even 
now,  strengthen  her  frame,  heal  her  putrefying 
wounds,  inspire  her  to  cope  with  the  social 
troubles  of  the  day,  illuminate  her  intellect  to 
triumph  over  the  cavils  of  unbelief,  stablish  her 
heart  for  the  evangelization  of  the  world,  and 
purify  her  aspirations  in  the  fulness  of  Divine 
Love. 

I    Believe    One  Catholic  and  Apostolic 

Church. 

The  object  of  our  faith  must  be  the  object  of 
our  affections.  They  shall  prosper  that  love 
thee ! 

We  cannot  love  an  entity  which  lacks  cor- 
porate life.  We  cannot  know  what  love  really 
is,  unless  we  are  taken  out  of  the  individuality 
of  selfish  nature  into  the  Body  of  the  Incarnate 
God,  for  God  is  Life  and  God  is  Love.  If  we 
love  one  another  with  the  life  of  God,  how 
must  our  hearts  grieve  at  the  sad  spectacle  of 


48  ORGANIZATION  OF   THE    CHURCH. 

divided  Christendom  !  Let  common  sorrow 
waken  us  to  mutual  love !  We  deplore  the 
calamities  which  we  witness,  but  reviving  ener- 
gies forbid  us  to  despair.  There  is  life  !  There 
is  hope !  The  schisms  of  the  Church  belong  to 
her  external  manifestation.  The  unity  of  the 
Church  is  indestructible. 

Sad  divisions  !  Sadder  still  that  simulated 
unity  which  is  only  of  earth,  and  dulls  the  con- 
sciousness of  unity  which  is  Divine. 

No  part  of  the  Church  can  have  real  unity 
within  its  own  limits.  Unity  postulates  integ- 
rity. The  unity  of  God  brings  co-operative 
life,  Catholic  as  embracing  all  the  world.  Apos- 
tolic as  organized  by  the  quickening  power  of 
grace,  a  unity  which  is  ever  holding  fast  to 
Jesus  Christ  as  the  Head  over  all  things  by  the 
power  of  the  One  Spirit  Who  animates  all. 

How  the  parts  of  Christendom  are  gasping 
in  worldly  difficulties  and  despair,  or  worldly 
hopes  far  sadder  than  despair,  because  we  do 
not  recognize  the  necessity  of  rising  out  of  our- 
selves in  the  fulness  of  brotherly  love  !  We 
have  yet  to  wake  to  a  consciousness  of  the 
Church  universal. 

It  matters  not  though  the  Church  on  earth 
may  dwindle  away  by  the  apostasy  of  multi- 
tudes. Unity  does  not  depend  on  numbers.  A 
small  body  is.  better  than  a  colossal  fragment. 


ORGANIZAl'IOY  OF   THE    CHURCH.  49 

Unity  does  not  depend  on  uniformity.  Simi- 
larity of  features  does  not  make  men  brothers, 
nor  diversity  of  character  destroy  a  kindred 
life.  But  unity  does  demand  circulation  of  life. 
Unity  does  demand  sympathy  of  feeling-.  Unity 
does  demand  identity  of  aim.  Unity  does  de- 
mand the  absence  of  self-sufficiency.  Unity  does 
demand  organic  integrity.  There  can  be  no 
maimed  unity  in  the  Body  of  Christ.  There  can 
be  no  unity  which  is  not  a  principle  of  grace  de- 
rived from  Him  the  Head,  and  sustained  by  the 
Apostolic  organism  whereby  His  life  flows  down. 

Let  us  not  fear  the  political,  the  intellectual, 
the  social  forces  of  the  day.  The  Church 
cannot  be  more  at  the  mercy  of  men  at  the 
present  time  than  she  was  when  an  Arian 
Emperor,  himself  unbaptized,  was  using  every 
stratagem  to  falsify  her  Creed.  The  study  of 
the  Councils  must  give  us  encouragement. 
We  must  not  look  downward  to  earthly  means 
of  security.  We  must  look  upward  in  the  full 
confidence  of  Divine  support.  It  was  in  the 
strenarth  of  conciliar  action  that  the  Church 
developed  throughout  those  centuries  of  suffer- 
ing. So  she  conquered  the  intellect  of  Pagan- 
ism which  dictated  the  crafty  arguments  of 
heretics  when  babbling  unbelief  bubbled  up 
in  frothy  forms  of  folly.  She  repudiated  the 
4 


so  ORGANIZATION  OF   THE    CHURCH. 

spurious  Creeds  which  had  their  origin  from 
man.  In  Council  after  Council  the  Church 
maintained  the  Truth.  She  refused  to  allow- 
that  she  was  beaten,  even  though  by  some 
stratagem  her  feet  at  times  were  made  to  slip. 
Her  heart  was  firm.  She  knew  herself  to  be 
an  organic  body,  united  with  Christ  in  His 
glory.     Her  enemies  were  but  a  mob. 

The  evils  of  our  own  day  must  in  like  man- 
ner develop  our  own  confidence.  It  is  not  our 
fault  if  evil  meets  us  in  strange  forms.  We  are 
not  responsible  for  the  history  of  the  past,  with 
all  its  sad  results.  We  are  responsible  for  the 
history  of  the  future,  that  God  may  glorify  His 
Church  with  many  a  triumph.  The  victory  is 
not  for  individuals  but  for  collective  action. 
If  the  Church  had  not  been  a  living  corporate 
reality,  the  efforts  of  Athanasius  would  have 
been  in  vain.  Sects  gain  their  spasmodic  life 
from  individuals,  and  when  the  individual  effort 
ends,  they  change  and  die.  Saints  gain  from 
the  Church  herself  the  life  that  is  eternal,  and 
by  the  transmission  of  life  from  generation  to 
generation  the  Church  lives  on. 

There  is  much  to  do  ere  Councils  in  any  true 
sense  can  be  a  reality.  To  meet  in  the  free  at- 
mosphere of  a  Council  would  be  almost  to  find 
the  very  purpose  of  our  meeting  accomplished  ! 
Each  branch  of  the  Church  has  its  difficulties 


ORGANIZATION  OF   THE    CIIUKCII.  5 1 

which  can  only  be  mastered  by  tremendous 
self-sacrifice.  Yet  must  we  do  what  we  can, 
lor  all  things  are  possible  with  God.  Only  let 
us  labor  according  to  truth. 

The  outward  universe  seemed  to  denounce 
with  lightning  and  storm  the  imposing  throng 
which  heard  the  decree  of  its  own  extinction, 
while  the  aged  Pontiff  of  the  Vatican  declared 
himself  to  be  the  sole  and  sufficient  teacher  of 
the  Church.  Surely  God's  Spirit  watched  over 
that  Council  in  spite  of  themselves.  God  did 
not  suffer  them  to  be  more  than  listeners.  The 
Council  was  dispersed  but  not  dissolved.  That 
Council  has  never  been  able  to  meet  again.  It 
would  seem,  therefore,  that  its  acts  can  never 
now  become  final  and  authoritative.  Coercion 
may  enforce  the  decree,  but  without  the  final 
ratification  of  the  Council  it  can  never  become 
the  constitutional  law  even  of  that  branch  of 
the  Church  which  succumbed  to  it. 

The  substance  of  the  Roman  Episcopate  has 
been  sucked  out  as  by  a  terrible  tumor.  The 
power  of  our  own  Episcopate  is  on  the  verge  of 
collapsing  by  excessive  tension. 

We  must  take  care  that  we  do  not  let  our- 
selves be  entrapped  into  any  steps  which  may 
similarly  imperil  our  own  true  character  as 
a  branch  of  the  Catholic  Church. 


52  ORGANIZATION   OF  THE    CHURCH. 

In  the  struggles  of  the  sixteenth  century  our 
forefathers  appealed  to  a  free  and  legitimate 
Council  of  universal  Christendom.  That  ap- 
peal cannot  die  out. 

We  do  not  make  this  appeal  merely  in  order 
to  justify  ourselves  at  the  bar  of  Christendom. 
We  appeal  to  a  General  Council  because  it  is 
only  such  collective  action  which  can  sustain 
the  health  of  the  Body  of  Christ  here  upon 
earth.  Without  such  united  action  the  various 
parts  of  the  Church  must  each  of  them  lose  its 
proper  vigor,  and  Christendom  will  become  a 
corpse.  True,  the  Gates  of  Hell  cannot  pre- 
vail against  the  Church.  Christ's  Body  cannot 
die  out  on  earth  until  His  voice  rings  with  bene- 
diction through  the  Heavenly  City  as  when  of 
old,  dying  upon  the  Cross,  He  cried  out.  It  is 
finished  ;  but  surely  it  is  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  speaking  through  all  the  branches  of 
Christendom,  as  the  faithful  few  shall  then  meet 
together  in  conference,  which  will  enable  the 
Church  of  the  last  days  to  close  her  pilgrimage, 
not  in  the  silence  of  exhaustion,  but  echoing  the 
cry  of  the  Victor  of  Calvary, ''  Father,  into  Thy 
Hands  I  commend  My  Spirit." 

The  Church  of  Christ  can  only  live  by  unity. 
As  we  have  the  unity  of  the  Spirit,  the  life  of 
the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  we  must  see  that 
we  cherish  the  bond  of  peace,  not  a  mere  acqui- 


ORGANIZATION  OF   THE    CHURCH.  53 

escent  dumbness  amid  differences,  such  as  can 
only  be  when  the  heart  has  lost  all  love  and 
beats  no  more,  but  the  thrilling  rapture  of  un- 
divided faith  :  this  is  the  interior  bond  !  Wor- 
ship responsive  from  heart  to  heart  as  spring- 
ing from  a  confident  expectation  common  to 
all :  this  is  the  spiritual  utterance  !  The  sacra- 
mental unity  of  the  Body  of  Christ :  this  is 
the  organic  form  ! 

How  God  shall  bring  our  desire  to  pass,  we 
cannot  tell.  We  are  sure  that  He  will  bless  the 
desire,  if  it  stimulate  us  to  labor  for  its  achieve- 
ment. 

One  thing  let  me  urge  before  I  close.  Ere 
we  can  properly  claim  a  proportionate  place  in  a 
Council  of  Christendom  we  require  a  vast  mul- 
tiplication of  our  own  Episcopate.  This  may 
need  to  be  done  gradually,  and  take  much  time 
in  its  organization. 

The  mediaeval  Bishops,  looking  to  an  earthly 
head,  might  measure  their  dignity  in  propor- 
tion as  they  could  ape  the  grandeur  of  their  cen- 
tral sovereign.  But  if  we  believe  in  the  real 
presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  with  every  Bishop 
to  speak  by  him  to  individual  souls,  then  we 
must  feel  the  great  importance  of  bringing  this 
presence  individually  and  habitually  near  to  all 
our  people.     The  early  Church  did  indeed  for- , 


54  ORGAJVIZATJON   OF   THE    CHURCH. 

bid  the  setting-  up  of  Bishops  in  insignificant 
places  ;  but  we  must  remember  him  who  when 
he  went  to  his  diocese  found  only  seventeen 
Christians  within  it,  and  when  he  died  left  only 
seventeen  that  were  heathen.  Let  us  not  wait 
until  the  number  of  Church  people  in  a  locality 
demand  a  diocese.  Surely  if  the  Bishop  goes 
forth  in  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
numbers  will  come.  It  is  of  no  use  to  multiply 
committees.  It  is  trifling  with  Providence  to 
suppose  that  the  Church  can  really  be  extended 
by  lay  readers.     Christ  sent  out  Apostles. 

In  England,  with  the  dense  population  so^ab- 
normally  accumulated  within  her  scanty  limits, 
we  need  a  great  multiplication  of  Dioceses,  but 
if  even  England  needs  a  fivefold  Episcopate 
through  density  of  population,  we  need  in  this 
State  alone  to  have  the  Bishops  multiplied  by 
five  in  order  to  attain  the  geographical  provi- 
sion which  was  made  for  our  Church  in  Eng- 
land in  days  of  less  congested  multitudes,  and 
even  then  more  scantily  made  than  would  have 
been  the  case  in  earliest  times. 

Twenty-six  Bishops,  then,  for  an  area  of  58,- 
000  square  miles  and  a  population  at  the  time 
of  the  Armada  of  5,000,000.  At  an  early  date 
there  were  seventy  Bishops  in  the  British  Isles. 
The  area  is  only  little  in  excess  of  the  area  of 
New  York  and  Massachusetts,  with  six  Bishops 


ORGANIZATION  OF   THE    CHURCH. 


55 


for  a  present  population  of  more  tlian  8,000,000. 
Even  the  addition  of  the  Bishops  in  obedience  to 
the  See  of  Rome  does  not  meet  the  deficiency.* 

*  The  following  comparative  statement  will  show  the  difference 
of  Episcopal  provision  in  former  times  and  now  : 


Population. 

Area, 
square  miles. 

Bishops. 

Roman. 

New  York 

Massaciiusetts   .... 

5.997.853 
2,238,943 

8,236,796 

49,170 
8.317 

57,487 

5 

I 

7 
3 

Total 

6* 

ID 

*  One  for  nearly  1,400,000  people  ;  g,6oo  square  miles. 


Population  at  the 
time  of  the  Ar- 
mada, about 

Area, 
square  miles. 

Bishops. 

England 

j-  5,000,000  1 

50,823 
7.363 

58,186 

j-     26* 

Wales , 

Total 

*  Rather  more  than  one  for  200,000  people  ;  2,000  square  miles. 


Present  popula- 
tion. 

Area, 
square  miles. 

Bishops. 

England 

27,499.984 
1. 501.034 

29,001,018 

50,823 
7.363 

58, 186 

j-    34* 

Wales   

Total 

*  One  for  900,000  people  ;  1,300  square  miles. 

But  compare  even  the  old  provision  for  England  with  that  of 
Italy : 


Population. 


Italy  . 


29,699,785 


Area, 
square  miles. 


Bishops. 


I     276  present 
114,410  -I.       at  Vatican 
(   !     Council.* 


*  One  to  100,000  people  ;  500  square  miles. 


56  ORGANIZATION-  OF   THE    CHURCH. 

Asia  Minor  is  not  so  large  as  the  block  of 
States  north  of  Virginia.  The  population  in 
these  States  must  be  vastly  greater  than  that  of 
Asia  Minor  in  her  most  flourishing  days,  and 
not  very  dissimilar  in  character.  Asia  Minor 
was  fringed  with  a  number  of  commercial  cities 
of  great  wealth,  activity,  and  culture.  The  in- 
terior portion  of  the  territory  was  thinly  peo- 
pled, whereas  with  us  the  whole  country  is 
covered  with  towns  and  villages.  Compare, 
then,  these  States  with  Asia  Minor  in  the  early 
centuries  of  Christianity. 

There  used  to  be  four  hundred  bishops  in 
Asia  Minor.  In  these  States  there  are  twenty- 
one.  If  we  believe  in  the  special  gifts  of  Apos- 
tleship  belonging  to  the  Episcopal  order  surely 
we  must  seek  to  have  an  increase  which  shall 
make  our  present  Apostolate  more  nearly  equal 
to  the  provision  of  early  times,  and  in  the  con- 
stant meeting  together  of  Provincial  Councils 
we  may  look  for  a  renovation  of  church  life  and 
the  getting  in  of  those  who  are  now  left  outside 
of  the  Church's  organized  discipline,  because  we 
do  not  provide  the  full  measure  of  Apostolic 
help. 

These  days  are  days  of  sudden  changes,  rap- 
id growths,  wonderful  results.  While  we  see 
what  the  world  is  doing  let  us  think  what  the 
Church   can   do.     The  Pentecostal    fire   burns, 


ORGANIZATION   OF   THE    CHURCH.  57 

though  unseen,  upon  the  head  of  all  whom 
God  has  called  to  the  Apostolic  office.  It 
burns  not  in  vain.  In  time  it  will  be  seen.  It 
will  burn  up  the  world  with  its  Divine  power. 
But  hand  to  hand  must  all  the  Churches  be 
gathered  that  the  electric  current  may  make 
its  power  to  be  felt.  The  normal  action  of  the 
Hol}^  Ghost  is  never  through  one  alone,  though 
individuals  must  each  rise  up  to  the  measure  oi 
the  Divine  call.  By  Councils  her  corporate  in- 
tegrity was  maintained  of  old.  By  Councils  we 
must  look  for  a  renewal  of  her  strength. 


tTbe  Council  of  IRic^a. 


LECTURE  II. 

THE   REVEREND   WILLIAM   McGARVEY,    B.D., 

Church  of  the  Evangelists,  Philadelphia. 

THE   COUNCIL    OF  NICyEA. 

We  are  told  that  "  there  was  war  in  heaven ;" 
a  war  in  which  a  creature  sought  to  deprive 
his  Creator  of  the  throne  of  deity.  How  that 
war  resulted  we  know.  "JNIichael  and  his 
angels  fought  against  the  dragon,  and  prevailed 
not;  neither  was  their  place  found  any  more 
in  heaven."  *  But  although  overcome  in  that 
terrible  struggle,  Satan  did  not  acknowledge 
final  defeat.  His  hate  of  the  God  of  heaven 
lived  on,  and  his  desire  to  dethrone  him  was 
not  changed.  The  host  which  had  followed 
him  in  his  rebellion  was,  it  is  said,  but  one-third 
of  all  the  angels.  Why  should  he  not  enlist  on 
his  side  the  souls  of  men,  and  join  them  to  the 
ranks  of  the  apostate  spirits,  so  that  in  a  sec- 
ond encounter  he  might  perhaps  be  victorious 
where  before  he  had   suffered  defeat?      How 

*  Rev.  xii.  7-8. 


62  THE    COUNCIL    OF  NIC  MA. 

successful  he  was  in  seducing-  man  we -know 
from  the  opening  book  of  the  divine  Scriptures, 
where  we  find  the  record  of  the  temptation 
and  fall  of  our  first  parents.  The  world  which 
was  God's  by  creation  became  in  time  Satan's 
by  conquest.  We  have  but  to  turn  over  the 
pages  of  history  to  realize  how  complete  was 
that  conquest.  When,  therefore,  the  Son  of 
God  entered  into  this  world,  he  came  into  the 
organized  kingdom  of  his  enemy.  He  him- 
self acknowledged  that  the  prince  of  this  world 
was  the  devil.  Nevertheless,  he  would  remind 
the  world  of  his  divine  sovereignty  which  it 
had  so  long  set  at  naught,  and  would,  if  possi- 
ble, recall  it  to  its  allegiance.  Accordingly,  he 
declared  himself  before  the  world  to  be  the  Al- 
mighty God,  and  this  claim  he  uncompromis- 
ingly insisted  upon.  During  the  three  years 
of  his  ministry  he  tried  to  impress  upon  his 
disciples  in  every  way  possible  the  realization 
of  his  divine  character.  Then  at  length  he 
sought  to  draw  forth  from  them  some  expres- 
sion of  the  thought  of  their  hearts,  and  to  hear 
from  their  lips  the  confession  of  his  divinity. 
"  He  asked  his  disciples,  saying.  Whom  do  men 
say  that  I  the  Son  of  Man  am  ?  And  they  said. 
Some  say  thou  art  John  the  Baptist ;  some  Eli- 
as ;  and  others  Jeremias,  or  one  of  the  proph- 
ets.     He  saith   unto  them.  But  whom  say  yQ 


THE    COUNCIL    OF  NIC  ALA.  63 

that  I  am  ?  "  Quickly  and  fervently  St.  Peter 
answered  :  "  Thou  art  the  Christ  the  Son  of  the 
living  God."  At  this  profession  of  faith  in  his 
divinity,  Jesus  Christ  turned  to  Saint  Peter, 
and  in  a  tone  of  unmistakable  pleasure  and  ex- 
ultation, said  to  him  :  "  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon 
Barjona ;  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed 
it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven. 
And  I  say  unto  thee.  That  thou  art  Peter,  and 
upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church  ;  and  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it."  "  But 
it  was  not  only  among  his  disciples  that  he 
claimed  to  be  divine,  but  also  openly  before 
the  men  of  the  world.  On  one  occasion,  a 
multitude  gather  about  him,  and  they  demand 
that  he  shall  declare  who  he  is  :  "  How  long 
dost  thou  make  us  to  doubt?  If  thou  be  the 
Christ,  tell  us  plainly."  To  this  direct  demand 
Jesus  answered :  "  I  told  you  and  ye  believed 
not ;  the  works  that  I  do  in  my  Father's  name, 
they  bear  witness  of  me."  "  I  and  my  Father 
are  one."  Again  he  stands  before  the  judg- 
ment-seat of  the  Jewish  hierarchy.  "  I  adjure 
thee,"  says  the  high  Priest,  "  by  the  living  God, 
that  thou  tell  us  whether  thou  be  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God."  To  this  solemn  appeal  Jesus 
answered,  "  Thou  hast  said :  nevertheless  I  say 

*  S.  Matt.  xvi.  1:1-18. 


64  THE    COUNCIL    OF  NIC.-EA. 

unto  you,  Hereafter  shall  ye  see  the  Son  of 
Man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power,  and 
coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven." 

Such  a  claim  to  divine  honours  on  the  part  of 
Jesus  Christ  could  not  go  unchallenged  in  a 
kingdom  whose  prince  had  refused,  ages  ago, 
or  perhaps  before  time  was,  to  bow  down  be- 
fore the  God  of  heaven.  As  Lucifer  had  used 
angels  as  instruments  of  his  pride,  so  now  he 
gathered  together  the  men  whom  he  had  made 
his  servants,  that  through  them  he  might  re- 
sist, and,  if  possible,  destroy  the  One  to  whose 
throne  of  deity  he  still  aspired.  On  more  than 
one  occasion,  we  read  of  our  Lord's  being  sur- 
rounded with  an  enraged  multitude,  who  would 
fain  have  taken  his  life.  "  Many  good  works 
here  I  showed  )^ou  from  my  Father ;  for  which 
of  these  works  do  ye  stone  me  ? "  asked  Jesus 
of  the  Jews,  as  one  day  they  stood  ready  to 
attack  him.  And  what  is  their  answer?  "  For 
a  good  work  we  stone  thee  not ;  but  for  blas- 
phemy ;  and  because  that  thou  being  a  man, 
makest  thyself  God."*  They  take  him  before 
Pilate's  judgment -seat,  and  the  chief  crime 
that  they  lay  to  his  charge  is,  "  He  made  him- 
self the  Son  of  God."t  Upon  this  accusation 
they  secured  his  condemnation  and  death.     As 

*  S.  John  X.  32-33.  f  S.  John  xix.  7. 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  NICyEA.  65 

Christ  hung  upon  the  Cross,  it  looked  as  if 
Lucifer  had  at  length  accomplished  what  he 
had  so  signally  failed  to  achieve  when  he 
contended  with  Michael  in  warfare.  But  his 
triumph  was  but  seeming  and  of  short  duration. 
On  the  Easter  morn,  he  was  again  Overwhelmed 
with  defeat,  for  he  whom  he  had  nailed  to  the 
Cross  of  shame  was  declared  to  be  the  Son  of 
God  with  power  by  his  resurrection  from  the 
dead. 

After  his  triumph  over  sin  and  death,  Jesus 
Christ  informed  with  his  Spirit  the  handful  of 
men  whom  he  had  inspired  with  faith  in  his 
divinity,  and  sent  them  forth  to  complete  the 
work  which  he  had  inaugurated.  That  work 
was  to  wrest  the  souls  of  men  from  the  domin- 
ion of  the  devil,  and  to  bring  them  to  acknowl- 
edge the  Crucified  as  their  king  and  God.  To 
worship  the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  to  defend 
his  honor,  and  to  bring  men  everywhere  to 
obey  and  love  him  is  the  Church's  raison  d'etre. 
"  Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church."  He 
warned  his  followers,  however,  that  in  the 
carrying  out  of  the  mission  which  he  set  be- 
fore them,  they  must  be  prepared  for  oppo- 
sition, hatred,  and  even  death.  Accordingly, 
no  sooner  did  the  Church  go  forth  to  preach 
the  Gospel,  than  straightway  the  sword  of  per- 
secution   was  unsheathed.     The   whole  power 


66  THE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC  MA. 

of  the  Roman  empire  was  brought  to  bear 
upon  these  strange  enthusiasts,  who  were  not 
content  that  they  themselves  should  Avorship 
one  Christ  as  God,  but  who,  insisting  upon 
the  exclusive  claims  of  their  God,  taught  that 
the  gods  made  with  hands  were  no  gods,  and 
were  unwearied  in  their  efforts  to  bring  all  men 
to  their  way  of  thinking.  Through  the  ten 
great  persecutions  the  Church  passed,  but  each 
fiery  ordeal  but  deepened  her  faith  in  her  incar- 
nate God,  and  increased  the  number  of  her  con- 
verts. At  length  she  came  forth  from  the  fur- 
nace of  suffering  purified  and  strengthened,  but 
only  to  enter  into  the  subtle  conflict  with  her- 
esy, which  was  waged  with  special  vehemency 
throughout  the  period  of  the  Councils,  and 
which  is  to  continue  to  the  end  of  time.  Even 
while  the  Church  had  with  her  the  presence  of 
the  inspired  Apostles,  there  had  already  ap- 
peared those  who  brought  in  damnable  her- 
esies, even  denying  the  Lord  that  bought  them. 
Judaic,  Docetic,  Gnostic,  and  Manichsean  sects 
— wild  caricatures  of  the  Church's  faith,  each 
one  surpassing  the  other  in  grotesqueness — 
sprang  up  here  and  there.  But  however  diverse 
these  sects  were,  they  had  one  common  charac- 
teristic. They  all  agreed  in  denying  either  the 
distinct  personality  or  the  perfect  divinity  of 
our  blessed  Lord.     These  early  heresies,  how- 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  NICAiA.  6/ 

ever,  in  most  cases  arose  from  without,  and  were 
the  result  of  the  mixing  together  of  one  or  two 
Christian  ideas  with  a  mass  of  Jewish  tradition- 
alism or  pagan  superstition.  And  even  in  those 
instances  where  they  originated  within  the 
Church,  their  adherents  soon  separated  them- 
selves from  her  communion,  and  set  up  organ- 
izations of  their  own.  They  made  but  little 
attempt  to  identify  their  teaching  with  the 
Church's,  and  rather  prided  themselves  in  be- 
ing altogether  separated  from  the  faithful, 
whom  they  regarded  as  the  "  carnal,"  and 
unable  to  rise  up  to  the  high  spiritual  views 
which  they  inculcated. 

The  spirit  of  error,  however,  was  not  content 
to  utter  blasphemies  outside  the  Church.  As 
he  had  dared  to  raise  the  standard  of  revolt 
even  in  the  court  of  heaven,  and  to  struggle 
that  he  might  there  have  a  recognized  place, 
so  in  the  fourth  century  of  the  Church's  his- 
tory, Arius  essayed  to  do  the  same  thing  in 
the  court  of  the  Church  on  earth.  The  arch- 
heretic  would  seem  to  have  been  a  person  of 
considerable  importance  in  the  Church  at  Alex- 
andria. He  was  in  charge  of  the  parish  of 
Baucalis,  and  a  lecturer  on  scriptural  exegesis. 
Upon  the  death  of  Achillas  he  had  been  named 
as  a  likely  candidate  for  the  vacant  see  of  Alex- 
andria.    Epiphanius  does  not  give  us  a  very 


68  rilE    COUNCIL    OF  AFIC.EA. 

flattering  picture  of  his  personal  appearance ; 
his  description,  however,  is  no  doubt  somewhat 
overwrought.  It  is  clear,  from  the  wide  influ- 
ence which  Arius  exercised,  that  he  was  a  man 
of  very  considerable  ability  and  attainments,  and 
that  he  possessed  that  gift  of  personal  attrac- 
tiveness which  is  the  secret  of  many  a  man's 
success.  Besides  natural  gifts,  he  had  more  or 
less  of  a  reputation  for  outward  respectability, 
and  even  for  asceticism  of  life.  That  he  was  a 
man  of  intolerable  pride  and  conceit  is  very 
evident  from  his  Thalia.  Still  he  must  have 
had  a  good  deal  to  commend  him  to  popular 
favour,  or  he  would  never  have  gained  the  sup- 
port he  did.  No  one  yet  ever  established  a 
formidable  heresy  who  was  notoriously  disre- 
putable. Nestorius  in  public  estimation  was  a 
saint,  Eutyches  was  a  great  ascetic,  and  so  on 
down  the  list.  Here,  then,  we  may  learn  a  les- 
son, which  is  very  apt  to  be  forgotten  in  the 
present  time.  It  does  not  follow  that,  because 
a  man  is  learned,  or  is  the  possessor  of  great 
natural  or  spiritual  gifts,  his  opinions  are  neces- 
sarily true  and  to  be  received.  Men  who  are 
richly  endowed  by  nature  or  by  grace,  are  the 
very  persons,  unless  the  spirit  of  true  humility 
is  an  active  principle  in  their  lives,  whom  the 
spirit  of  error  seeks  to  puff  up  with  conceit  of 
their  own  knowledge,  in  order  to  lead  them  to 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC  MA.  69 

take  up  a  position  opposed  to  a  right  faith. 
And  therefore,  when  the  Holy  Ghost  would 
put  us  on  our  guard  against  false  teachers,  he 
warns  us  that,  although  seeking  only  to  cor- 
rupt the  Gospel,  they  will  appear  as  angels  of 
light,  and  may  even  seem  to  come  from  heaven; 
and  although  really  wolves  doing  all  in  their 
power  to  destroy  souls,  yet  they  will  hide  their 
true  character  under  the  form  of  lambs.  But 
however  attractive  they  may  appear  outwardly, 
if  when  they  open  their  mouths,  *  they  confess 
not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  we 
may  know  that  they  are  not  of  God,  but  are  of 
the  spirit  of  antichrist.'  * 

We  do  not  know  with  certainty  the  occasion 
when  Arius  first  broached  his  heresy.  iVccord- 
ing  to  Socrates,  the  Church  historian,  Alexan- 
der, the  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  "  in  the  fearless 
exercise  of  his  functions  for  the  instruction  and 
government  of  the  Church,  attempted  one  day 
in  the  presence  of  the  presbytery  and  the  rest 
of  his  clergy,  to  explain  the  unity  of  the  Holy 
Trinity."  Arius  vigorously  responded  to  what 
was  said  by  the  Bishop.  "  If,"  said  he,  "  the 
Father  begat  the  Son,  he  that  was  begotten  had 
a  beginning  of  existence ;  and  from  this  it  is 
evident,  that  there  was  a  time  when  the  Son 

*  I  S.  John  iv.  2,  3. 


^0  THE   COUNCIL    OF  NICyEA. 

was  not.  It,  therefore,  necessarily  follows  that 
he  had  his  subsistence  from  nothing."  *  He 
further  asserted,  as  we  learn  from  one  of  the 
letters  of  Alexander,  "  that  God  was  not  always 
the  Father,  but  that  there  was  a  period  when 
he  was  not  the  Father ;  that  the  Word  of  God 
was  not  from  eternity,  but  was  made  out  of 
nothing  ;  for  that  the  ever-existing  God  (the  I 
AM — the  eternal  One)  made  him,  who  did  not 
previously  exist,  out  of  nothing.  Wherefore, 
there  was  a  time  when  he  did  not  exist,  inas- 
much as  the  Son  is  a  creature  and  a  work. 
That  he  is  neither  like  the  Father,  as  it  regards 
his  essence,  nor  is  by  nature  either  the  Father's 
true  Word,  or  true  Wisdom,  but  is  indeed  one 
of  his  works  and  creatures."  f  This  declaration 
of  Arius's  was  an  absolute  denial  of  the  divinity 
of  the  Son  of  God.  There,  in  a  temple  and  be- 
fore an  altar  erected  for  the  worship  of  the 
incarnate  God,  was  heard  the  cry  of  revolt 
against  that  God  ;  a  cry  suggested  by  that  un- 
dying spirit  of  pride  which  had  of  old  dared  to 
raise  the  shout  Non  serviam  in  heaven  itself. 
If  Jesus  Christ  was  but  a  creature,  then  the 
whole  of  Christianity  is  stultified  ;  the  incarna- 
tion Ls  emptied  of  all  meaning;  the  blood  shed 

*  Ecclesiastical  History,  bk.  i.,  cliap.  v. 

f  Socrates:  Ecclesiastical  History,  bk.  i.,  chap.  vi. 


THE   COCXCIL    OF  NIC/EA.  /I 

upon  the  cross  is  robbed  of  all  virtue,  the  Sacra- 
ments are  but  shams ;  na}'  more,  Jesus  Christ 
himself  is  found  to  be  a  false  witness  unworthy 
even  of  respect ;  and  we  are  left  without  God 
in  the  world,  and  of  all  men  most  miserable. 
And  even  thouofh  it  be  not  said  that  Christ  is  a 
creature,  but  that  he  is  a  second  divinity,  hav- 
ing a  distinct  existence  from  the  Father — an 
opinion  which  some  of  the  Arians  would  seem 
to  have  held — yet  such  an  opinion  destroys  at 
once  the  Christian  idea  of  God.  Under  the 
Christian  conception  of  the  divine  nature  lies 
the  thought  of  infinitude.  God  is  infinite  as  to 
his  existence  and  his  power,  and  therefore  he 
cannot  be  but  One.  But  if  there  are  two  or 
more  gods,  no  one  of  them  can  be  infinite,  and 
therefore  no  one  of  them  is  the  God  of  Christian- 
ity, and  so  monotheism  is  at  once  overthrown, 
and  polytheism  again  brought  in.  There  have 
been,  and  there  are,  those  who  affect  to  sneer  at 
the  whole  controversy  between  orthodoxy  and 
Arianism,  deeming  it  but  an  idle  battle  over 
words.  But  this  sneer  only  betrays  their  lack 
of  any  appreciation  of  what  Christianity  really 
is.  The  more  one  grows  in  the  knowledge  of 
the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  more  will  one  real- 
ize the  awful  crisis  through  which  the  Church 
passed  in  the  fourth  century,  when  Arianism 
claimed  the  right  to  live  and  move  within  her 


•]2  THE    COUNCIL    OF  NIC.-EA. 

pale.  Mr.  Fronde,  writing  of  Thomas  Carlyle, 
says :  ''  He  made  one  remark  which  is  worth  re- 
cording. In  earlier  years  he  had  spoken  con- 
temptuously of  the  Athanasian  controversy — of 
the  Christian  world  torn  in  pieces  over  a  diph- 
thong :  and  he  would  ring  the  changes  in  broad 
Annandale  on  the  Homoousion  and  the  Homoi- 
ousion.  He  now  told  me  that  he  perceived 
Christianity  itself  to  have  been  at  stake.  If  the 
Arians  had  won  it  would  have  dwindled  away 
to  a  legend."  * 

As  to  what  was  the  Church's  faith  with  re-, 
gard  to  the  divinity  of  Christ  prior  to  the  out- 
break of  Arianism,  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
doubt.  It  was  well  known,  even  to  the  heathen, 
that  she  worshipped  Christ  as  the  Almighty 
God,  It  is  this  faith  which  underlies  the  ear- 
ly creeds,  the  liturgies,  and  the  writings  of  the 
early  Fathers.  In  these  latter  it  is  not  always 
expressed  in  the  accurate  and  sharply  defined 
terminology  which  heresy  afterward  made 
necessary,  and  which  the  councils  formulated  ; 
but,  as  Bishop  Bull  has  shown  in  his  Dcfensio 
Fidei  Niccetice,  belief  in  the  divinity  of  the  Son 
of  God  was  as  firmly  held  in  the  post-apostolic 
Church  as  it  was  afterward  when  the  definition 
of  Niccea  had  been  set  forth.      How  then,  it 

*  Life  in  London,  p.  462. 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  NICMA.  73 

ma}'  be  asked,  did  it  come  that  Arius  set  him- 
self against  the  whole  stream  of  Christian  tra- 
dition ? 

Before  the  coming  of  Christ  the  intellectual 
powers  of  man  were  as  keen  as  they  have  ever 
been  since ;  and  yet,  notwithstanding  all  their 
efforts,  they  did  not  attain  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  one  true  God,  and  to  the  treasures  of  sci- 
ence to  which  that  knowledge  is  the  key  :  "  The 
world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God."  *  When 
time  had  demonstrated  the  utter  helplessness  of 
the  natural  understanding  to  answer  the  many 
questions  which  pressed  upon  men,  God  came 
into  the  world,  not  only  to  be  an  example  of 
godly  life,  not  only  to  be  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  but 
also  to  be  the  light  of  the  human  reason.  He 
came  to  solve  the  problems  of  life,  and  to  im- 
part to  men  that  knowledge  which  can  alone 
satisfy  the  mind  and  heart.  But  if  men  would 
be  enlightened  by  this  truth,  they  must  first  ac- 
knowledge their  blindness,  and  by  an  act  of 
loving  faith  entrust  their  understanding  to  his 
keeping  who  had  created  it.  To  every  soul 
seeking  for  light  and  wisdom  amid  the  doubt  and 
darkness  of  this  world,  Jesus  Christ  says :  "  If 
thou  canst  believe,  all  things  are  possible  to  him 
that  believeth."  f     And  that  men  may  be  led  to 

*  I.  Cor.  i.  21.  f  S.  Mark  ix.  23. 


74  THE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC^EA. 

submit  their  reason  to  his  sovereignty,  he  gives 
to  them  the  preventing  gift  of  grace  to  assure 
their  conscience  of  the  truth  of  his  claims. 
So  soon  as  the  soul,  in  answer  to  the  call  of 
Jesus  Christ  and  the  drawings  of  his  Spirit, 
places  itself  under  the  dominion  of  faith,  it  is 
that  instant  lifted  up  into  a  new  sphere.  Once 
brought  into  the  Church,  it  finds  itself  in  a  cer- 
tain intellectual  atmosphere,  and  surrounded 
by  certain  positive  influences,  all  of  which  are 
intended  by  God,  not  in  any  way  to  curb  the 
legitimate  exercise  of  thought,  but  to  guide  it 
aright  toward  the  attainment  of  that  perfect 
knowledge  for  which  it  was  created,  and  for 
which  it  yearns.  Now,  in  Arianism  we  see  the 
intellect  breaking  away  from  the  dominion  of 
faith  and  refusing  its  guidance.  The  root-prin- 
ciple which  underlay  the  heresy  of  Arius  was 
that  the  human  understanding  is  of  itself  suf- 
ficient to  judge  and  determine  spiritual  truth. 
Whatever  could  not  be  weighed  and  measured 
by  one's  brains  must, be  rejected.  As  in  the 
natural  order,  the  father  is  in  point  of  time  be- 
fore  the  Son,  therefore  in  the  divine  relationship 
the  Father  must  also  have  been  before  the 
Son ;  and  the  Son  could  not  be  co-eternal  with 
him,  but  there  must  have  been  a  time  when  he 
was  not,  for  the  mind  has  no  experience  of  any 
other  order  being  implied  by  these  terms.     It 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  NICyEA.  75 

mattered  not  to  Arius  that  the  whole  Chris- 
tian consensus  was  against  hira,  and  taught 
that  the  Son  was  co-eternal  and  co-equal  with 
the  Father.  It  mattered  not  that  Holy  Scrip- 
ture declared  most  explicitly  the  divinity  of 
Christ.  Arius  could  not  understand  how  the 
Son  could  be  in  all  respects  equal  to  the  Father, 
and  therefore  the  Christian  consensus  must  be 
wrong,  and  the  statements  of  Holy  Scripture 
must  be  either  emptied  of  all  meaning,  or  else 
by  ingenious  twists  perverted  from  their  evi- 
dent sense.  The  principle  which  underlay 
Arianism  is  the  one  which  underlies  every 
other  heresy  which  has  vexed  the  Church. 
And  it  arises  from  the  forgetfulness  or  the  de- 
nial of  a  fundamental  truth  of  divine  revela- 
tion, viz.,  that  the  fall  not  only  affected  man's 
lower  nature,  but  that  the  intellectual  part  was 
also  involved.  Not  only  is  man  unable  in  his 
own  strength  to  do  the  good  which  he  wills, 
but  his  mind  having  been  wounded 'by  sin,  is 
subject  to  ignorance,  and  is  unable  by  its  own 
efforts  to  attain  to  that  knowledge  for  which.it 
is  ever  seeking.  So  that  man  needs,  not  only 
the  grace  of  Jesus  Christ  to  live  purely  in  this 
present  world,  but  he  also  needs  the  illuminat- 
ing wisdom  of  faith  to  enlighten  the  darkness 
of  his  mind.  But  the  mind  in  its  proud  self- 
sufficiency  is  loath  to  admit  its  helplessness.     It 


"jG  THE    COUNCIL    OF  NICMA. 

is-  ever  saying,  and  never  so  confidently  as  in 
the  present  age,  "  I  am  rich,  and  increased 
with  goods,  and  have  need  of  nothing ;  "  and  it 
knoweth  not  that  it  is  wretched,  and  miserable, 
and  poor,  and  blind.  Hence  its  unwillingness  to 
bow  humbly  to  faith,  and  hence  also  the  many  re- 
volts like  Arius's  against  the  restraints  of  faith. 
Alexander,  who  was  at  this  time  Bishop  of 
Alexandria,  while  free  from  all  sympathy  with 
the  opinions  of  Arius,  hesitated  to  take  any 
steps  to  put  a  stop  to  their  expression.  Natu- 
rally a  timid  man,  he  shrank  from  facing  the 
storm  which  the  condemnation  of  Arius  would 
certainly  have  raised.  At  first,  therefore,  he 
counselled  moderation,  allowed  free  discussion 
to  both  parties,  and  even  presided  at  the  de- 
bates upon  subjects  which  had  been  brought 
into  question.*  "  He  deemed  it  more  advisable, 
to  leave  each  party  to  the  free  discussion  of 
doubtful  topics,  so  that  by  persuasion  rather 
than  by  force,  they  might  cease  from  contro- 
versy." This  was  a  very  plausible  line  of  pol- 
icy, had  the  look  of  fairness  about  it,  and  no 
doubt  drew  forth  the  applause  of  outsiders, 
and  gained  for  Alexander,  so  long  as  he  ad- 
hered to  it,  the  reputation  of  being  a  broad- 
minded  man  who  could  rise  up  above  the  pet- 


*  Sozomen  :  Ecclesiastical  History,  bk.  i.,  chap.  xv. 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  NICMA.  T] 

ty  controversies  of  the  day.  Meanwhile  Arius 
was  busy  disseminating  his  opinions  every- 
where, which  like  all  novelties  had  soon  many 
advocates.  In  order  that  they  might  reach 
every  class  of  men,  he  composed  songs  and 
hymns  in  which  his  blasphemies  were  set  forth 
in  verse.  "  The  evil  which  began  in  the  Church 
of  Alexandria,  ran  throughout  all  Egypt,  Li- 
bya, and  the  upper  Thebes,  and  at  length  dif- 
fused itself  over  the  rest  of  the  provinces  and 
cities."  *  So,  while  the  timid  policy  of  Alex- 
ander prevailed,  the  Church  was  being  laid 
waste,  and  souls  for  whom  Christ  shed  his 
blood  were  being  destroyed.  As  there  was 
found,  however,  in  heaven  a  Michael  courag- 
eous enough  to  withstand  Lucifer,  so  there  was 
not  wanting  in  the  Church  an  Athanasius  to 
withstand  Arius.  There  can  be  no  doubt  of 
Alexander's  perfect  orthodoxy  ;  he  only  lacked 
that  fortitude  of  character  necessary  for  him  to 
initiate  proceedings  against  Arius.  The  qual- 
ity which  the  Bishop  lacked,  Athanasius,  the 
Deacon,  could  supply  him  with  in  abundance. 
At  his  suggestion,  Alexander  addressed  a  let- 
ter to  Arius,  which  the  clergy  also  signed,  ask- 
ing him  to  refrain  from  his  heretical  teaching. 
A  synod  of  the   Bishops  of  Egypt  and  Libya 

*  Socrates,  bk.  i. ,  chap.  vi. 


78  THE   COUNCIL    OF  NICMA. 

was  next  assembled  in  A.D.  321,  at  Alexandria, 
which  condemned  the  opinion  of  Arius  and 
excommunicated  all  those  who  held  it.  But 
Arianism  had  been  allowed  to  strike  its  roots 
too  deeply  and  widely  to  be  destroyed  by  the 
condemnation  of  a  local  council.  Arius  him- 
self had  indeed  to  take  his  departure  from 
Alexandria,  but  he  left  behind  him  a  powerful 
and  turbulent  party,  strongly  attached  to  his 
teaching.  Epiphanius  tells  us  that,  so  great 
was  the  arch-heretic's  popularity,  no  less  than 
seven  hundred  virgins  in  the  city  alone, 
declared  themselves  as  his  supporters ;  no 
mean  army  in  an  ecclesiastical  war.  From 
Syria,  where  Arius  had  gone,  he  was  busy 
writing  letters  and  sending  emissaries  to  the 
oriental  Bishops.  Eusebius,  of  Ccesarea,  the 
Church  historian,  took  sides  with  him,  more, 
however,  because  he  thought  him  to  be  a  per- 
secuted man  than  from  any  positive  sympathy 
with  his  opinions.  Eusebius,  of  Nicomedia, 
espoused  his  cause  with  heart  and  soul,  and  to 
the  end  was  a  thorough -going  Arian.  In  a 
comparatively  short  time  Arius  could  boast 
that  all  the  Bishops  of  the  East  were  his 
friends,  except  Macairius  of  Jerusalem,  and  a 
few  other  ignorant  persons.*     The  Bishop  of 

*  Theodoret  :  Ecclesiastical  History,  bk.  i.,  chap,  iv. 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  NICyEA.  79 

Nicomedia  having  assembled  a  S3'nod  at  which 
Arius  Avas  publicly  received  to  communion,  ad- 
dressed a  letter  of  commendation  of  him  to  the 
Bishops  generally,  and  also  sent  one  to  Alex- 
ander urging  him  to  receive  Arius  back  again. 
Athanasius  now  formulated  a  letter  for  his 
Bishop,  in  which  he  set  forth  at  some  length 
the  destructive  character  of  the  heresy  which 
Arius  had  originated.  This  letter  was  forti- 
fied by  the  signatures  of  the  presbyters  of  Al- 
exandria and  Mareotis,  and  sent  to  all  the 
Bishops.  All  this  correspondence  but  served 
to  spread  abroad  knowledge  of  the  controver- 
sy, and  conflicting  parties  were  formed  every- 
where. "  In  every  city,  Bishops  were  engaged 
in  obstinate  conflict  with  Bishops,  and  people 
rising  against  people,  and  almost  like  the  fabled 
Symplegades  coming  into  violent  collision  with 
each  other."  '^ 

Constantine,  at  this  time,  had  just  com- 
pleted his  victory  over  Licinius,  and  was  doing 
all  in  his  power  to  unify  the  empire  ;  the  ap- 
pearance therefore  of  this  controversy  in  the 
Church,  threatening,  as  it  did,  to  interfere  se- 
riously with  his  political  plans,  could  not  but 
cause  him  irritation  and  anger.  He  addressed 
a  letter  to  Alexander  and   Arius,  and  sent   it 

*  Eusebius  :  Life  of  Constantine,  bk.  iii. ,  cliap.  iv. 


80  THE    COUNCIL    OF  NICE  A. 

by  Hosius  of  Cordova.  The  whole  tone  of  this 
epistle  is  characterized  by  the  worldly  wisdom 
of  a  statesman  with  but  little  knowledge  of 
Christianity,  and  still  less  appreciation  of  the 
vital  principles  involved  in  the  controversy. 
The  letter  begins  by  gently  rebuking,  on  the 
one  hand  Alexander  for  imprudence,  and  Arius 
for  rashness,  in  attempting  to  discuss  a  question 
incapable  of  solution.  It  assures  them  both 
that  after  all  their  differences  are  only  in  words, 
and  that  in  principle  they  really  agree  ;  that  to 
continue  such  a  controversy  would  be  vulgar 
and  unworthy  of  intelligent  men,  and  could 
only  result  in  further  divisions.  Finally,  it  ex- 
horts them  both  to  be  content  with  believing 
together  in  divine  Providence,  and  to  allow  to 
each  other  the  free  exercise  of  their  individual 
opinions  upon  all  other  questions.  There  never 
yet  has  been  a  controversy  in  the  Church  when 
advice  of  this  sort  has  not  been  given  by  some- 
one. But  it  is  a  piece  of  advice  which  has 
never  yet  stilled  any  controversy,  and  never 
can.  "  What  communion  hath  light  with  dark- 
ness ?  And  what  concord  hath  Christ  with 
Belial?  Or  what  part  hath  he  that  believeth 
with  an  infidel?"*  Arianism  denied  the  per- 
fect  divinity    of   the   Son    of    God,    how    then 

*  II.  Cor.  vi.  14,  15. 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC  At  A.  8 1 

could  those  who  worshipped  him  as  God  take 
Constantine's  advice,  and  join  hands  with  men 
whose  opinion,  if  it  prevailed,  must  necessarily 
result  in  overthrowing  that  worship  ? 

Constantine's  letter  had  failed  of  its  object ; 
the  controversy  raged  on  with  ever-increasing 
fury.  Something  more  was  needed  than  the 
dictum  of  an  emperor  in  order  to  still  the 
storm  and  to  restore  peace.  The  Church  her- 
self must  utter  her  voice  and  declare  authori- 
tatively what  was  the  faith  Avhich  she  had  re- 
ceived. Then,  too,  there  was  the  question  as 
to  the  time  of  keeping  Easter,  which  had  been 
the  subject  of  angry  dispute  and  even  of  di- 
vision, and  which  could  only  be  finally  set- 
tled by  the  Church's  decision.  Accordingly, 
a  General  Council  of  all  the  Bishops  of  the 
Church  was  called  to  meet  in  the  city  of  Ni- 
casa,  in  Bithynia.  The  Council  convened  in 
May,  A.D.  325,  and  continued  in  session  for 
about  three  months.  '  The  most  distinguished 
of  God's  ministers  from  all  the  churches,  which 
abounded  in  Europe,  Libya,  and  Asia,  were 
here  assembled.  And  a  single  house  of  pray- 
er contained  at  once  Syrians  and  Cilicians, 
Phoenicians  and  Arabians  ;  delegates  from 
Palestine,  and  others  from  Egypt ;  Thebans 
and  Libyans,  with  those  who  came  from  the 
region  of  Mesopotamia.  A  Persian  Bishop,  too, 
6 


82  THE    COUNCIL    OF  NIC  MA. 

was  present  at  this  Council,  nor  was  even  a 
Scythian  found  wanting  to  the  number.  Pon- 
tus,  Galatia,  and  Pamphylia,  Cappadocia,  Asia, 
Phrygia,  furnished  their  most  distinguished 
prelates ;  while  those  who  dwelt  in  the  re- 
motest districts  of  Thrace  and  Macedonia,  of 
Achaia  and  Epirus  were  in  attendance.  Even 
from  Spain  itself,  one  whose  fame  was  widely 
spread,  Hosius  of  Cordova,  took  his  seat  as  one 
of  the  great  assembly.  The  prelate  of  the  im- 
perial city  was  prevented  from  attending  by 
extreme  old  age,  but  his  presbyters  were  pres- 
ent, and  supplied  his  place.'  *  Some  of  the 
Fathers  of  the  Council  were  well  known  for 
their  heroic  faithfulness  during  the  recent  per- 
secutions, and  bore  in  their  scarred  and  muti- 
lated bodies  the  marks  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 
There,  for  example,  was  Paul,  Bishop  of  Neo- 
Csesarea,  who  had  been  deprived  of  the  use  of 
both  hands  by  the  application  of  hot  irons  ; 
others  had  the  right  eye  dug  out,  and  still 
others  had  lost  the  right  arm.f  Then  there 
were  also  present  in  the  Council  Bishops  the 
greater  part  of  whose  lives  had  been  spent  in 
the  deserts  of  Egypt,  and  who,  in  the  work  of 
spiritual   mortification,    could    tell   of   strange 

*  Eusebius  :   Life  of  Constantine,  bk.  iii.,  chap,  vii, 
f  Tlieodorct,  bk.    i.,  chap.  vi. 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC  MA.  83 

battles  fought  with  "  principalities,  and  powers, 
and  the  rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  world  and 
spiritual  wickedness  in  high  places." 

But  all  who  were  gathered  at  the  Council  of 
Nicoea  were  not  saints.  The  primitive  Church 
was  very  like  the  Church  of  every  subsequent 
aa"e.  It  had  its  sinners  as  well  as  its  saints. 
And  the  Council  of  Nicrea  was  not  unlike  the 
ecclesiastical  assemblages  of  the  present  day 
with  which  we  are  acquainted.  There  were 
there,  indeed.  Bishops  whose  one  chief  thought 
was  the  advancement  of  the  glory  of  the  Lord 
whom  they  loved  ;  but  there  were  also  others 
who  saw  in  the  Council  only  an  opportunity 
of  advancing  their  own  interests,  and  who 
thought  far  more  of  the  list  of  grievances 
they  had  brought  to  present  to  the  emperor, 
than  of  the  great  work  which  the  Council  had 
before  it.  There  were  there,  indeed.  Bishops 
who  were  ready  to  endure  the  spoiling  of  their 
goods  and  the  loss  of  life,  rather  than  abate 
one  jot  or  tittle  of  the  faith  which  they  had 
received  ;  but  there  were  others  who  were 
just  as  ready  for  any  compromise  personal 
interest  might  dictate,  or  which  popular  opin- 
ion might  demand. 

Looking  at  the  theological  parties  in  the 
Council,  there  were,  in  the  first  place,  those 
who,   perfectly    convinced    of    the   essentially 


84  THE   COUNCIL    OF  NICMA. 

anti-Christian  character  of  Arianism,  had  come 
with  the  firm  determination  to  listen  to  no 
half  measures,  but  to  insist  upon  its  absolute 
condemnation.  Alexander  was  naturally  the 
representative  of  this  party,  and  Athanasius, 
though  still  but  a  deacon,  its  inspiring  and  di- 
recting spirit.  But  the  Bishops  who  adhered 
to  the  side  of  Alexander  and  Athanasius  were 
in  a  minority.  Orthodoxy,  if  it  had  nothing 
else  to  depend  upon  but  the  number  of  its 
determined  champions,  could  certainly  not  feel 
assured  of  carrying  the  day.  But  the  believ- 
ers in  the  consubstantial  divinity  of  the  Son 
of  God  came  to  the  Council,  not  trusting  in 
their  numbers,  but  in  the  strength  of  the  Lord 
God  of  Hosts,  who  can  save  by  many  or  by 
few,  and  who  had  promised  that  the  gates  of 
hell  should  not  prevail  against  His  Church. 
In  the  next  place,  there  was  the  party  of  which 
Eusebius  of  Csesarea  was  the  mainstay.  It 
was  made  up  of  those  Bishops  who,  while  not 
committed  to  the  doctrinal  position  of  Arius, 
were  prepared  to  oppose  any  measures  which 
looked  toward  his  condemnation  and  exclu- 
sion from  the  Church.  They  were  representa- 
tives of  that  class  of  minds,  always  to  be  found 
in  the  Church,  who  do  not  seem  to  be  able 
to  realize  that  the  Church  exists  in  the  world 
not  to   build   up   an    earthly    kingdom,   but   a 


THE    COUNCIL    OF  NIC  ALA.  85 

kingdom  of  immortal  souls,  whom  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ  Jesus  has 
set  free  from  the  dominion  of  sin  and  death  ; 
and  that  her  power  to  build  up  this  spiritual 
kingdom  will  depend  altogether  upon  her  faith- 
ful presentation  of  the  truth  God  has  com- 
mitted to  her.  They  rather  look  upon  present 
and  material  prosperity  as  the  surest  index  that 
the  Church  is  succeeding.  To  them  the  gain 
of  numbers,  wealth,  and  worldly  influence,  is 
godliness  ;  and,  therefore,  they  are  ever  ready 
to  keep  in  the  background  any  disagreeable 
principle,  or  to  make  any  compromise  short 
of  a  formal  denial  of  the  faith,  in  order  to 
attract  the  multitude  and  to  increase  the  num- 
ber of  nominal  believers.  To  such  men,  the 
agitation  which  Athanasius  had  stirred  up  by 
his  active  opposition  to  Arius,  could  not  but 
seem  to  be  destructive  of  the  Church's  best 
interests.  While,  therefore,  the  Bishop  of  Cas- 
sarea  and  his  party  were  themselves,  in  the 
main,  perhaps  orthodox,  they  were  prepared  to 
oppose  any  definition  which  would  make  the 
Church  less  comprehensive,  and  render  it  im- 
possible for  Arius  and  his  followers  to  remain 
any  longer  within  her  borders.  Next  there 
was  the  Arian  party  proper,  with  Eusebius  of 
Nicomedia  as  its  head  and  chief  speaker.  The 
Bishops  who  composed  it  made  no   secret   of 


86  THE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC  MA. 

their  agreement  in  principle  with  the  opinions 

of  Arius;    and  they  had  come  to  the  Council 

with  their  minds  quite  made  up  to  obtain,  if 

possible,  a  distinctively  Arian  creed,  or  at  least 

one  capable  of  an  Arian  interpretation.     They 

had  on  their  side  many  of  the   brightest   wits 

among  the  Bishops,  men  well  trained  to  handle 

all  the  weapons  of  a  dialectical  contest.     While 

but  a  minority   in  themselves,  they  looked  to 

the  Bishop  of   Caesarea   and  his  followers  for 

support   when   the   crisis   came.      Their   hope 

of   victory,    however,    chiefly    depended    upon 

their  securing  the  votes  of  a  majority  of  the 

two  hundred  and  odd  Bishops  who  were  not 

yet   definitely  committed    to  either  side.     The 

Bishops  who  formed  the  bulk  of  the  Council 

were  most  of  them    simple-minded    men    who 

sincerely  desired  to  preserve  inviolate  the  faith 

which  they  had  received,  and  to  transmit  it  in 

its   integrity  to  the  generations  yet   to  come. 

But  being  men  of  little  intellectual  acuteness, 

and  perhaps  not  fully  alive  to  the  gravity  of 

the  issue  before  them,  there  was  a  real  danger 

that  they  might  be  imposed  upon  by  the  am- 

biofuous   statements  of   the  Arians,  and    be  in- 

duced  to  give  their  adhesion  to  a  creed  under 

which  Arianism  could  afterward  shield  itself. 

That  the  Arian  party  had   high  hopes  of  using 

these  simple  men,  and  so  of  carrying  the  day. 


THE    COUXCIL    OF  NIC.^A.  8/ 

is  evident  from  subsequent  events.  It  was 
not,  however,  to  be  the  last  time  that  heresy, 
puffed  up  by  the  thought  of  its  popularity, 
should  go  to  a  Council  expecting  to  commit 
the  Church  to  its  way  of  thinking,  but  only 
to  meet  with  disappointment  and  humiliating 
defeat. 

The  first  two  weeks  after  the  Council  had  as- 
sembled seem  to  have  been  spent  in  desultory 
discussions.  Soon  after  Constantine  arrived 
at  Nicasa,  the  Council  formally  began  the 
work  for  which  it  had  been  convened.  That 
work  was  twofold  :  the  Bishops  had  first  to  an- 
swer the  question  "  What  think  ye  of  Christ  ?  " 
and  in  the  second  place  they  had  to  express 
their  answer  in  such  accurate  language  as 
would  leave  no  doubt  as  to  what  the  faith  was. 
Almighty  God  ordained  His  Church  not  only  to 
administer  His  grace,  but  also  to  preserve  and 
propagate  His  truth,  and  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  this  work  He  promised  her  the  guid- 
ance of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Trusting  to  this 
promise,  the  Church  would  declare  what  the 
truth  was  with  regard  to  the  person  and  nature 
of  her  Lord.  Before  the  day  set  for  the  final 
decision  of  the  Council,  Arius  appeared  several 
times  before  the  Bishops,  and  confidently  af- 
firmed his  heresy  without  ambiguity  or  any 
attempt  at  disguise.    His  bold  avowals  were  re- 


88  THE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC  MA. 

ceived  with  every  oriental  expression  of  dis- 
pleasure and  repugnance.  They  stopped  their 
ears,  and  cried  out  again  and  again,  "  We  never 
heard  such  things."  The  reception  accorded  to 
Arius,  although  it  would  seem  to  have  been  un- 
expected by  his  sympathizers,  did  not  by  any 
means  discomfit  them.  Arianism  was  well 
versed  in  the  devices  of  deceit,  and  what  it 
could  not  take  by  storm,  it  might  yet  be  able 
to  accomplish  by  craft.  From  the  first  it  seems 
to  have  been  understood  that  the  result  of  the 
Council's  action  would  be  set  forth  in  a  symbol 
of  faith.  During  the  process  of  formulating 
such  a  symbol,  the  statements  and  phrases  of 
Holy  Scripture  which  teach  the  divinity  of  the 
Son  were  adduced  by  the  followers  of  Athana- 
sius.  But  to  their  surprise,  the  Arians  were 
ready  to  acquiesce  in  the  adoption  of  all  of 
these  terms.  Did  the  Catholics  want  to  say 
that  the  Son  was  begotten  of  the  Father  ?  the 
Arians  were  ready  to  subscribe  ;  for,  said  they, 
is  it  not  written  that  all  things  are  from  God  ?  * 
Did  the  Catholics  propose  that  it  should  be 
declared  that  the  Son  is  in  all  things  like  the 
Father  ?  the  Arians  are  prepared  to  give  their 
consent ;  for,  said  they,  submissa  voce,  is  it  not 
written   that   man    is   the  image  and  glory  of 

*  Athanasius  :  Dc  Decretis,  chap.  v. 


THE   COVXCIL    OF  NIC  MA.  89 

God  ?  -^  Will  the  Catholics  have  the  Council 
declare  that  the  Son  is  the  power  of  God?  the 
Arians  will  give  their  assent,  for,  say  they 
among  themselves,  the  caterpillar  and  locust 
are  called  the  power  of  God.f  Do  the  Catho- 
lics try  to  meet  these  evasions  by  declaring  that 
the  Son  is  eternal  as  to  his  existence  ?  But  even 
this  proposition  presents  no  difficulties  to  the 
quick-witted  Arians  ;  they  will  subscribe  to  it, 
for,  say  they,  as  they  wink  at  one  another,  is  it 
not  written  that  "We  who  live  are  alway  ? " :}: 
It  looked  as  if  Athanasius  and  his  supporters 
were  completely  baffled,  and  that  there  was  no 
form  of  words  with  which  to  set  forth  the  per- 
fect divinity  of  the  Son,  which  these  Arians 
could  not  take  and  either  empty  of  all  meaning, 
or  else  pervert  to  a  false  one.  Reading  over 
this  period  of  the  history  of  the  Church,  and 
observing  the  subterfuge  and  trickery  resorted 
to  by  the  Arians  in  order  that  they  might  re- 
main in  the  Church,  and  minister  at  the  altars 
of  Him  whom  they  blasphemed,  one  cannot  but 
be  impressed  by  the  striking  resemblance  be- 
tween their  methods  and  those  which  are  re- 
sorted to  now,  by  men  whose  elastic  conscience 
permits    them    to   profess    with   their   lips   the 

*  Athanasius  :  De  Dccrctis,  chap.  v.  f  Ibid. 

Xlbid.,   Ad  Afros,  5. 


90  THE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC^A. 

Church's  creed,  and  with  the  next  breath  to 
undertake  to  deprive  it  of  all  significance. 
Verily,  the  spirit  and  mantle  of  Arius  has 
fallen  upon  not  a  few  in  these  last  days. 

The  Arians,  encouraged  by  their  success  in 
evading  every  test  proposed  by  the  orthodox 
Bishops,  now  determined  upon  a  bold  move. 
Upon  the  day  set  for  the  final  decision,  Euse- 
bius,  of  Nicomedia,  suddenly  laid  before  the 
Council  for  its  acceptance  a  proposed  Creed  of 
his  own  devising.  It  was  a  desperate  attempt 
to  commit  the  Council  to  heresy.  But  the 
Arians  had  overestimated  their  strength,  and 
this  move  only  brought  upon  them  swift  disas- 
ter. "  The  Creed  proposed  by  the  Bishop  of 
Nicomedia,"  says  Eustachius,  quoted  by  Theo- 
doret,  "  contained  undisguised  evidence  of  his 
blasphemy.  The  reading  of  it  before  all  occa- 
sioned great  grief  to  the  audience,  on  account 
of  its  departure  from  the  faith."  "  As  soon  as 
it  was  read  it  was  torn  to  pieces,  and  was  de- 
clared to  be  spurious  and  false."*  This  public 
displeasure  of  the  majority  of  the  Bishops 
cowed  the  Arians,  and  taught  them  that  the 
Council  could  not  be  as  easily  managed  as  they 
had  thought;  and  it  made  them  also  realize 
that  their  ultimate  success  was  far  from  being 

*  Ecclesiastical  History,  bk.  I.,  chap.  vi. 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  NICE  A.  9 1 

assured.  They  at  once  agreed  among'  them- 
selves that  their  wisest  course  now  was  to  say 
nothing,  and  accordingly,  "  under  the  pretence 
of  preserving  peace,  they  imposed  silence  upon 
their  ablest  speakers."  *  The  politic  Bishop  of 
Csesarea  now  comes  to  the  front  to  make  one 
last  effort  to  prevent  the  Council  from  excluding 
the  Arians  from  the  Church.  He  proposed  a 
creed  which,  with  some  slight  modifications, 
had  been  in  use  in  his  own  diocese.  Its  phrase- 
ology was  scriptural,  and  no  exception  could 
be  taken  to  its  positive  statements,  even  by 
Athanasius  himself.  The  Arians,  moreover,  ex- 
pressed their  perfect  willingness  to  subscribe  to 
it.  Surely  in  this  creed  the  Council  had  a  ba- 
sis of  union  and  harmony.  Why  should  it  not 
be  adopted  ?  But  thei'e  was  just  one  notable 
defect  in  this  proposed  formula.  If  it  was  ac- 
cepted the  Council  would  leave  undetermined 
the  one  special  question  which  it  had  been 
assembled  to  determine,  viz.,  Is  Christ  divine 
in  the  same  sense  that  the  Father  is  divine  ? 
There  was  nothing  in  this  creed  which,  in  view 
of  the  ingenuity  of  the  Arians,  could  be  quoted 
as  a  decisive  answer  to  this  question.  Now, 
there  was  one  phrase  which  had  been  thrown 
out  in  the  earlier  discussions  of  the   Council, 

*  Ecclesiastical  History,  bk.  I.,  chap.  vii. 


92  THE   COUNCIL    OF  NICMA. 

and  to  which  the  Arians  had  taken  special 
exceptions,  because  they  did  not  seem  to  be 
able  to  find  any  gloss  with  which  to  explain  it 
away  ;  it  was  the  phrase  oixoovcnov  rw  UarpL 
This  was  a  term  which  expressed  exactly  the 
doctrine  of  Christ's  perfect  divinity  for  which 
Athanasius  and  those  who  were  with  him  had 
been  so  long  contending,  and  therefore  they 
had  set  their  hearts  upon  its  finding  a  place  in 
the  Council's  definition.  Constantine,  prompted 
by  Hosius  of  Cordova  or  Athanasius,  sug- 
gested that  the  phrase  should  be  inserted  in 
the  creed  proposed  by  the  Bishop  of  Cassarea. 
The  suggestion  was  adopted  by  the  Bishops, 
and  the  phrase,  together  with  some  others,  was 
accordingly  incorporated ;  so  that  the  creed  as 
thus  revised  differed  very  considerably  from 
what  had  been  at  first  proposed  by  Eusebius. 
Then,  in  order  to  leave  no  possible  doubt  with 
regard  to  the  Council's  absolute  rejection  of 
Arianism,  there  was  added  a  formal  anathema 
of  the  distinguishing  tenets  of  Arius :  "  The 
Holy  Catholic,  and  Apostolic  Church  anathe- 
matizes those  who  say  that  there  was  a  time 
when  the  Son  of  God  was  not,  and  that  before 
he  was  begotten  he  was  not,  and  that  he  was 
born  out  of  the  things  that  exist  not,  or  who 
assert  that  he  is  of  another  nature  or  substance 
[from  the  Father],  or  that  he  is  mutable  or  sub- 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC.-SA.  93 

ject  to  change."  The  definition  thus  formu- 
lated lay  before  the  Bishops  ;  to  give  it  author- 
ity and  make  it  effective,  it  must  be  signed. 
We  are  told  that  the  Council  paused.  And 
well  it  might,  for  no  one  could  foresee  what 
disastrous  results,  from  a  humdn  point  of  view, 
might  be  the  outcome  of  the  adoption  of  this 
drastic  definition.  Considerations  which  the 
worldly  wise  had  no  doubt  urged  were  not  for- 
gotten. What  if  the  followers  of  Arius  should 
not  yield  ?  What  if  the  Church  should  be  rent 
in  pieces  by  the  Council's  action,  and  that  at 
a  time  when  she  ought  to  present  an  united 
front  to  the  men  of  the  world  who  were  asking 
for  admission  to  her  courts?  Why  make  it 
more  difficult  for  them  to  adopt  Christianity, 
by  insisting  upon  a  proposition  which  they 
would  certainly  consider  unreasonable  and  even 
puerile  ?  Why  narrow  the  Church  bounds, 
and  drive  out  men  who  were  prepared  to  sub- 
scribe to  a  creed  like  that  first  proposed  by 
the  Bishop  of  Caesarea  ;  who  were  prepared 
to  meet  Athanasius  more  than  half-way  ;  Avho 
were  ready  to  confess  —  provided  they  were 
not  too  closely  questioned  as  to  what  they 
meant  by  their  words — that  Christ  was  "the 
Word  of  God  ;  God  of  God ;  Light  of  Light ; 
Life  of  Life ;  the  only-begotten  Son,  the  first- 
born of  every  creature  ;  begotten  of  God  the 


94  THE    COUNCIL    OF  NICMA. 

Father  before  all  worlds,"  *  but  who  could  not 
say  that  he  is  "  of  one  substance  with  the 
Father  ? "  Was  it  fair  to  drive  out  of  the 
Church  with  anathemas  men  who  were  willing 
to  subscribe  to  so  much,  just  because  they 
could  not  subsctibe  to  this  one  clause?  Con- 
siderations like  these  are  always  sure  to  be 
brought  forward  in  order  to  deter  the  Church 
from  bearing  witness  to  the  truth  which  she 
has  received  to  keep.  But  such  considerations 
had  no  weight  with  the  greater  number  of 
those  who  were  gathered  at  Nicasa.  The  Ari- 
ans  must  profess  the  homoousion,  or  be  cast 
out  of  the  Church  of  God.  No  quarter  was 
to  be  given  to  the  enemies  of  Christ's  prefect 
divinity.  "  The  Council  closed  its  ranks  and 
marched  triumphantly  to  its  conclusion.  All 
signed,  all  but  two,  Secundas  and  Theonas." 
The  question,  "  What  think  ye  of  Christ,"  was 
answered,  and  answered  forever. 

The  Council  of  Nicaea  was  a  battle-field  in 
which  the  Church  had  to  grapple  Avith  the 
spirit  of  antichrist.  Lucifer  came  to  the  Coun- 
cil encouraged  by  the  thought  that  the  world 
was  with  him.  He  said  in  his  heart,  "  1  will  as- 
cend into  heaven,  I  will  exalt  my  throne  above 
the  stars  of  God  ;  I  will  sit  also  upon  the  mount 

*  Creed  of  Csesarea. 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC  ALA.  95 

of  the  congregation,  in  the  sides  of  the  north ;  I 
will  ascend  above  the  heights  of  the  clouds ;  I 
will  be  like  the  most  High."  *  He  looked  around 
him,  and  on  his  side  were  arrayed  the  world's 
numbers  and  its  wisdom.  And  who  were  they 
who  had  come  determined  to  withstand  him  ? 
Only  the  little  band  of  believers  gathered 
around  Athanasius.  But  the  allies  of  that  de- 
spised handful  of  men  were  the  armies  of 
Heaven,  and  He  who  went  before  them  to 
battle  was  called  the  Word  of  God,  whose  eyes 
are  as  a  flame  of  fire,  and  out  of  whose  mouth 
goeth  a  sharp  sword.  "  The  dragon  fought, 
and  his  angels,  and  prevailed  not ; "  Christ 
conquered,  and  Satan  was  again  cast  down. 
Never  since  that  war  which  was  waged  in 
Heaven  was  such  a  battle  fought  or  such  a 
victory  won.  And  from  that  day  until  this  the 
Church's  confession  of  faith  and  her  triumphant 
battle-song  has  been  the  Creed  that  was  set 
forth  at  Niceea. 

To  go  over  in  detail  the  after -history  of 
Arianism  would  carry  us  quite  beyond  the 
limits  laid  down  by  the  subject  of  this  lect- 
ure. It  may  suffice  to  say  that  the  decree  of 
Nicsea  did  not  put  an  end  to  the  heresy.  Its 
supporters,  although  excommunicated,  did  not 

*  Isaiah  xxiv.  13,  14. 


96  THE   COUNCIL    OF  NICyEA. 

give  up  hope  of  eventually  obtaining  for  their 
opinion  a  tolerated  place  in  the  Church.  In 
time  they  gained  the  ear  of  Constantine  ;  the 
Arian  bishops  were  recalled  from  their  exile, 
and  some  of  them  reinstated  in  their  sees. 
It  Avas  next  represented  to  the  Emperor  that 
Arius  had  been  misunderstood  as  to  his  teach- 
ing ;  that  he  was  really  in  accord  with  the 
definition  of  NicDea,  and  did  not  hold  the  opin- 
ions attributed  to  him  ;  that,  in  a  word,  he  was 
a  much-abused  man,  a  victim  of  Athanasius' 
ill-tempered  zeal.  The  arch -heretic  was  at 
length  brought  back  from  exile,  and  his  return 
was  hailed  with  every  demonstration  of  popu- 
lar approval.  The  world  ever  knows  and  loves 
its  own.  '  It  is  ever  wondering  after  the  beast ; 
ever  saying.  Who  is  like  unto  the  beast?  who 
is  able  to  make  war  with  him  ? '  *  Filled  with 
exultation  at  the  turn  of  affairs  in  his  favour, 
and  animated  with  the  old  spirit  of  deceit, 
Arius  now  sought  to  be  restored  to  the 
Church's  communion  as  publicly  as  he  had 
been  separated  from  it.  He  appeared  before 
Constantine  and  took  a  solemn  oath  that  he 
did  not  hold  the  opinions  for  which  he  had 
been  condemned,  and  that  he  professed  the 
faith  of  the  Church  of  Christ.     "  If  thy  faith  be 

*  Rev.  xiii.  3,  4. 


THE    COUNCIL    OF  NIC  MA.  9/ 

right,"  said  the  emperor,  "  thou  hast  done  well 
to  swear,  but  if  thy  faith  be  impious,  and  thou 
hast  sworn,  God  judge  thee  according  to  thy 
oath."  The  morrow  was  set  for  his  public  re- 
ception to  communion.  What  sorrow  and  con- 
sternation must  have  filled  the  hearts  of  the 
faithful  in  Constantinople !  They  wept  and  la- 
mented, but  the  world  rejoiced.  How  often 
has  it  been  so  since  !  But  they  were  not  with- 
out hope.  They  besieged  heaven  with  their 
supplications  that  God  would  deliver  his 
Church  from  the  power  of  his  enemy.  The 
aged  Bishop  prostrate  before  the  altar  of  the 
Consubstantial  Son  of  God  prayed  v/ith  tears 
that  "  If  Arius  be  brought  to  communion  to- 
morrow, let  me  thy  servant  depart,  and  destroy 
not  the  godly  with  the  wicked  ;  but  if  thou  wilt 
^pare  thy  Church,  and  I  know  that  thou  canst 
spare,  look  upon  the  words  of  Eusebius  and  his 
company,  and  give  not  thine  inheritance  unto 
destruction  and  reproach,  but  take  Arius  away, 
lest  if  he  enter  into  thy  Church,  his  heresy  may 
also  seem  to  enter  with  him,  and  henceforth 
ungodliness  be  accounted  for  godliness."  That 
very  night  as  Arius  was  proceeding  in  triumph 
through  the  city,  the  hand  of  God  smote  him, 
and  he  died.* 


*  Athanasius,  Ad  Sera-pion,  De  Morte  Arii. 
7 


98  *      THE   COUNCIL    OF  NICMA. 

Undeterred  by  the  fearful  end  of  their  leader, 
the  Arians  still  persevered  in  their  opposition 
to  the  faith  of  Nicasa.  They  had  on  their  side 
wealth  and  worldly  power,  and  therefore  God's 
judgments  were  far  above  out  of  their  sight. 
From  this  time  on  the  political  influence  of 
Arianism  increased.  Although  not  making  any 
ostensible  efforts  to  undo  the  work  of  the  Coun- 
cil, it  nevertheless  was  busy  undermining  the 
influence  of  its  most  conspicuous  supporters. 
Under  Constantius,  Arianism  became  the  pow- 
er behind  the  throne ;  it  had  now  no  need  to 
veil  its  real  aims.  Council  after  council  was  as- 
sembled in  the  vain  effort  to  overshadow  Ni- 
caea,  and  to  destroy  its  prestige.  Persecution 
was  resorted  to  in  order  to  force  the  Catholics 
to  accept  the  innumerable  creeds  which  were 
being  issued.  And  Athanasius  once  and  again 
became  an  exile,  hiding  in  the  holes  and  caves 
of  the  earth.  Where  persecution  failed,  persua- 
sion and  deceit  often  succeeded  ;  and  there  was 
more  than  one  conspicuous  example  of  apos- 
tasy. Arianism  was  triumphing  everywhere. 
But  divisions  appeared  in  its  own  ranks. 
Semiarians,  Homoeans,  Anomoeans,*  and  other 
sects  sprang  up,  each  opposed  to  the  other,  and 

*  The  watchword  of  the  Semiarians  was  Homoiousion,  "like 
substance  ;"  of  the  Homoeans,  Homoion,  "like  ;"  of  the  Ano- 
moeans, Anomoion,  "  altogether  unlike." 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  A'lC.^A.  99 

only  agreeing  in  repudiating  the  definition  of 
the  Homoousion.  In  these  divisions,  Arianism 
saw  the  beginning  of  its  own  destruction,  and 
therefore  a  supreme  effort  was  made  to  unite 
upon  a  common  basis  all  those  who  rejected 
the  Creed  of  NicEea.  A  Council  was  called  to 
meet  at  Rimini,  a.d.  359  ;  part  of  it,  however,  as- 
sembled at  Seleucia.  By  the  threats  of  Constan- 
tius  the  signatures  of  the  bishops  were  secured 
to  a  creed  which,  although  Arian  in  its  general 
tenor,  was  sufficiently  vague  to  admit  of  almost 
any  interpretation.  Arianism  could  now  boast 
of  a  definition  in  its  favour,  given  by  a  Coun- 
cil far  exceeding  in  point  of  numbers  the 
one  which  had  assembled  at  Nicsea,  a.d.  325. 
But  its  triumph  was  but  short-lived,  and  the 
unity  which  it  had  secured  but  a  shadow. 
Scarcely  had  the  creed  of  Rimini  been  set 
forth  than  Julian  the  Apostate,  the  protege  of 
Arians,  came  upon  the  stage  of  history.  He 
restored  paganism  once  more  to  its  old  place, 
thinking,  no  doubt,  that  the  worship  of  the  gods 
of  old  Rome  was  at  least  more  reasonable  than 
the  religion  of  his  Arian  tutors,  who  though 
outwardly  giving  worship  to  Christ,  declared 
at  the  same  time  that  He  was  but  a  creature. 
During  the  reigns  of  Julian,  Jovian,  Valentin- 
ian,  and  Valens  the  history  of  Arianism  is  but 
the  history  of  petty  sects,  each  surpassing  the 


lOO  THE   COUNCIL    OF  NICMA. 

other  in  blasphemy.  But  amid  all  the  confu- 
sion of  this  period  the  faith  of  Nicsea  lived  on, 
giving  hope  to  sinners,  forming  saints,  and  sus- 
taining martyrs.  And  when,  under  Theodosius, 
the  Church  for  the  second  time  assembled  in 
Council,  and  opened  her  mouth  to  give  expres- 
sion to  the  faith  of  her  heart  and  mind,  her 
words  are  still  the  same :  "  I  believe  in  one 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  only-begotten  Son  of 
God  ;  Begotten  of  his  Father  before  all  worlds, 
God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  Very  God  of  very 
God  ;  Begotten  not  made ;  Being  of  one  sub- 
stance with  the  Father;  By  whom  all  things 
were  made." 

As  we  read  over  the  Nicene  Creed  with  the 
additions  made  at  Constantinople,  the  ques- 
tion may  occur  to  some  one  :  Is  this  all  the 
faith  which  God  has  revealed  to  His  Church  ? 
If  by  the  question  you  mean  to  ask  whether  all 
the  faith  is  implicitly  contained  in  the  Creed, 
the  answer  is  yes.  For  the  Catholic  religion  is 
such  a  perfectly  logical  system  that  by  a  kind 
of  circuminsession  of  doctrine  each  proposition 
of  the  faith  is  implied  in  every  other  proposi- 
tion, and  may  be  deduced  therefrom.  So  that, 
as  S.  Thomas  observes,  all  the  articles  of  the 
faith  are  but  the  logical  development  of  the 
first.  Credo  in  unum  Deum.  In  this  sense  it  may 
be  said  that  the  whole  faith  is  contained  in  the 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC^A.  lOI 

Nicene  Creed.  But  if  by  the  question  you 
mean  to  ask,  whether  the  Creed  is  a  full  and 
explicit  exposition  of  the  faith,  so  that  nothing 
is  de  fide  but  what  is  there  in  so  many  words 
set  forth,  the  answer  is  no,  most  distinctly  no. 
The  Council  of  Nicaea  did  not  assemble  for  the 
purpose  of  setting  forth  a  complete  exposition 
of  God's  revelation.  If  it  had  done  so  there 
would  have  been  no  necessity  for  any  General 
Council  afterward.  It  came  together  to  meet 
the  heresy  of  Arius,  and  to  define  the  divinity 
of  the  Son  of  God.  The  authority  of  Holy 
Scripture,  the  necessity  of  grace,  the  sacra- 
ments, the  sacred  ministry,  and  many  other 
matters  are  certainly  integral  parts  of  God's 
revelation,  which  we  must  accept,  although 
they  are  not  set  forth  in  any  creed.  The  state- 
ment, however,  is  made,  sometimes  thought- 
lessly, and  sometimes  with  a  purpose,  that  be- 
cause these  things  have  not  been  formally  de- 
fined by  any  General  Council,  they  are  there- 
fore not  of  faith,  and  everyone  is  free  to  reject 
or  to  accept  them.  The  major  premise  of  this 
conclusion  is  that  nothing  is  de  fide  but  what 
has  been  so  defined.  Now  such  a  proposition 
will  not  bear  a  moment's  examination.  Will 
anyone  assert  that  the  Church  had  no  definite 
faith  during  the  three  hundred  and  odd  years 
before  her  first  General  Council,  and  that  the 


I02  THE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC  MA. 

divinity  of  Christ  was  until  then  a  matter  of 
mere  opinion  ?  To  ask  such  a  question  is  to 
answer  it.  Of  course  the  Church  had  her  faith, 
by  which  sinners  were  saved  and  saints  per- 
fected, long  before  a  General  Council  was  so 
much  as  thought  of.  And  when  the  first  Gen- 
eral Council  put  forth  its  definition  it  did  not 
profess  to  be  setting  forth  anything  new  or  un- 
heard of,  but  only  enforcing  what  was  then 
de  fide  and  had  always  been  de  fide.  We  must 
not  think  of  a  council  as  a  magisterium  set  over 
the  Church  to  gradually  unfold  to  her,  as  time 
goes  on,  what  the  faith  is.  This  seems  to  be  a 
common  conception  of  the  office  of  a  General 
Council,  but  it  is  a  wholly  false  one.  Jesus 
Christ  delivered  to  His  Church  the  faith  once 
for  all,  and  to  that  deposit  no  addition  can  ever 
be  made.  He  then  gave  to  her  the  gift  of  the 
abiding  presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  bring 
to  her  remembrance  all  things  that  He  had 
taught  her.  The  Church,  therefore,  knows 
what  the  faith  is  by  an  inwrought  conscious- 
ness. She  needs  no  Council  to  tell  her  what  it 
is,  for  she  herself  is  taught  of  God.  But  when 
heresy  attacks  the  faith,  and  there  is  grave 
danger  that  she  should  be  misrepresented,  then 
she  utters  her  voice  to  declare  the  faith  which 
is  within  her,  and  the  organ  of  her  speech  is  a 
General  Council.     If  there  had  been  no  here- 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC  ALA.  103 

sies  there  would  have  been  no  need  for  Coun- 
cils; for  all  her  children  being  partakers  of  the 
life  of  the  corporate  body,  are  also  partakers 
of  the  light  of  faith.  So  long  as  they  willingly 
yield  themselves  to  the  guidance  of  this  super- 
natural illumination  they  have  no  difficulty  of 
obtaining  from  the  pages  of  Holy  Scripture, 
from  the  monuments  of  tradition,  and  from  the 
consensus  of  the  whole  Church,  the  knowledge 
of  that  truth  which  abides  in  the  Church  as 
a  principle  of  life.  And  therefore  S.  John, 
writing  to  his  converts,  says :  "  Ye  have  an 
unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know  all 
things."  "  The  anointing  which  ye  have  re- 
ceived of  him  abideth  in  you,  and  ye  need  not 
that  any  man  teach  you :  but  as  the  same 
anointing  teacheth  you  all  things,  and  is  truth, 
and  is  no  lie,  and  even  as  it  hath  taught  you, 
ye  shall  abide  in  him."* 

But  although  the  Nicene  Creed  is  not  an  ex- 
plicit statement  of  the  whole  Christian  faith, 
inasmuch  as  many  things  which  are  de  fide  are 
not  there  expressly  set  forth,  yet  everything 
that  is  of  faith  is  there  at  least  implicitly  con- 
tained. Indeed,  we  may  go  further  and  say, 
that  our  whole  religion  rests  upon  the  single 
clause,   "  homoousion  with    the    Father."     For 


I  S.  John  ii.  20,  27. 


104  'rHE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC^A. 

upon  the  divinity  of  our  Lord  are  based  all  our 
hopes  with  regard  to  the  effacement  of  past  sin, 
for  grace  in  this  life  present,  and  for  the  joy  of 
heaven  hereafter.  To  maintain  and  propagate 
faith  in  the  divinity  of  the  incarnate  Son  of  God 
is,  as  has  been  said,  the  Church's  raison  d'etre. 
It  is  well  that  we  should  be  reminded  of  this 
when  there  is  such  a  disposition  to  multiply 
beneficiary  agencies  of  all  kinds  for  the  care  of 
men's  temporal  interests,  and  when  there  is  a 
real  danger  of  the  importance  of  the  Church's 
purely  spiritual  ministrations  being  overshad- 
owed. The  works  of  beneficence  are  all 
very  well  in  their  place,  but  if  the  Church 
spends  most  or  all  of  her  time  and  efforts  in 
providing  men  with  social  entertainment,  and 
in  feeding  and  clothing  their  bodies,  and  is  not 
brinfiino-  them  to  acknowledge  Jesus  Christ  as 
their  king  and  God,  and  to  give  Him  the  wor- 
ship which  is  His  due,  she  is  failing  utterly  to 
fulfil  the  mission  for  which  she  was  ordained. 
We  must  remember  that  the  eternal  reward  is 
not  promised  to  us  for  mere  acts  of  beneficence, 
but  it  is  promised  to  us  for  doing  these  deeds 
of  charity  to  Christ :  "  The  king  shall  say  unto 
them  on  his  right  hand.  Come,  ye  blessed  of  my 
Father,  inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world:  For /was 
hungered,  and  ye  gave  me  meat :  /  was  thirsty, 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  NICyEA.  105 

and  ye  gave  nic  drink :  /  was  a  stranger,  and  ye 
took  me  in  :  Naked,  and  ye  clothed  me :  I  was 
sick,  and  ye  visited  me :  I  was  in  prison,  and  ye 
came  unto  vieT  And  our  Lord  has  taught  us 
that  it  is  when  we  minister,  not  to  anyone,  but  to 
His  brethren  that  we  minister  unto  Him.  Now 
who  are  Christ's  brethren  ?  All  men,  the  pop- 
ular religion  of  the  day  answers.  And,  accord- 
ingly, it  is  never  weary  of  telling  men  indis- 
criminately, even  those  who  refuse  to  give 
Christ  divine  worship,  that  they  have  God  for 
their  father.  By  which  teaching  it  means  to 
imply,  not  only  that  God  is  the  Creator  of  all 
men — for  in  this  sense  He  may  be  said  to  be 
the  father  even  of  the  irrational  and  inanimate 
creation — but  that  there  is  a  spiritual  relation- 
ship existing  between  God  and  all  humanity, 
by  the  very  fact  that  it  is  humanity,  such  a 
relationship  as  heretofore  was  thought  to  exist 
only  between  God  and  the  faithful  believer. 
But  such  an  idea  is  certainly  not  derived  from 
divine  revelation.  Holy  Scripture  teaches  us 
distinctly  that  men  are  by  nature  born  in  sin 
and  are  the  children  of  wrath,  and  that  this  sin- 
fulness is  increased,  and  God's  wrath  intensified 
by  their  own  actual  offences.  In  such  a  condi- 
tion, before  faith  and  penitence  have  done  their 
work,  no  adult  can  be  a  member  of  Christ,  and 
so  he  cannot  have  God  for  his  father.      But 


I06  THE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC  MA, 

who  does  Christ  Himself  say  are  His  breth- 
ren ?  ''  He  stretched  forth  his  hand  towards 
his  disciples,  and  said,  Behold  my  mother  and 
my  brethren.  For  whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of 
my  Father  ivJiieh  is  in  heaven,  the  same  is  my 
brother,  and  sister,  and  mother."  According 
to  this  definition  Christ's  brethren  are  not  as 
numerous  as  much  of  the  preaching  of  the  day 
would  have  us  believe.  Moreover,  when  those 
who  denied  His  divinity  proudly  claimed,  just 
as  their  successors  do  now,  to  have  God  for 
their  Father,  He  would  not  allow  their  claim  for 
an  instant,  but  with  an  unwonted  and  stinging 
severity,  answered  them :  "  If  God  were  your 
Father  ye  would  love  me ;  for  I  proceeded 
forth  and  came  from  God."  "  Ye  are  of  your 
father,  the  devil,  and  the  lusts  of  your  father  ye 
will  do."  And  the  Holy  Ghost  also  says  ex- 
pressly, "  Whosoever  denieth  the  Son  the  same 
hath  not  the  Father."  The  ancient  Church  un- 
derstood well  who  were,  and  who  were  not,  the 
children  of  God,  and  so  would  not  suffer  those 
under  instruction  to  address  God  with  the 
words,  "  Our  Father,"  until  they  had  professed 
faith  in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  received  tHe 
grace  of  baptism.  We  must  not  allow  our- 
selves to  be  blinded  to  our  real  work  as  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  of  Christ.  To  bring  men 
to  the  acknowledgment  of  the  truth  that  they 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC^A.  I07 

may  be  saved  from  the  wrath  to  come  is  our 
first  duty,  and  any  form  of  philanthropic  activ- 
ity which  does  not  contribute  to  this  end  is 
worse  than  vain.  The  philanthropy  which 
cares  for  men's  bodies,  but  leaves  their  souls  in 
the  darkness  of  sin,  is  not  of  God.  It  is  but 
practical  Pelagianism,  a  form  of  error  which 
logically  is  not  far  removed  from  Arianism. 
When  we  have  brought  men  to  acknowledge 
Jesus  Christ  as  their  God  and  to  place  them- 
selves under  His  sovereignty,  then,  indeed, 
they  become  His  brethren.  Then  every  act  of 
charity  done  to  them  is  bestowed  upon  Christ, 
and  therefore  has  a  great  recompense  of  re- 
ward. 

Not  only  is  there  the  temptation  to  substitute 
humanitarianism  for  the  preaching  of  the  truths 
of  revelation,  but  there  comes  to  the  Church 
the  temptation  to  compromise  the  faith  for  the 
sake  of  some  present  and  temporal  advantage. 
The  devil  at  times  takes  the  Church,  as  he  did 
her  Lord,  to  the  lofty  mountain  of  worldly 
ambition,  and  opens  out  to  her  the  possibility 
of  a  rapid  increase  of  her  numbers,  of  wealth, 
and  of  earthly  influence.  All  these  things  the 
tempter  offers  to  her,  if  only  she  will  abate  this 
or  that  part  of  the  faith.  For  the  Church  to 
accept  such  a  condition,  is  for  her  to  forget 
that  the  truth  is  hers  to  keep,  but  not  to  throw 


I08  THE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC  MA. 

away  ;  that  it  is  hers  to  teach,  but  not  to  hide 
under  a  bushel.  She  may  bear  with  the  stam- 
mering faith  of  Christ's  babes  who  are  within 
her  fold,  but  she  dare  not  hold  out  the  bait  of 
negation  to  those  who  are  without,  and  say  to 
them,  that  if  they  will  only  come  into  her  fold 
they  need  not  believe  in  this  or  that  disagree- 
able truth.  To  do  this  would  be  for  her  to 
fall  into  heresy,  for  heresy  is  but  the  negation 
of  truth.  And  every  heresy,  it  matters  not 
what  it  is,  if  pushed  to  its  logical  and  necessary 
conclusion,  will  end  in  the  denial  of  the  divinity 
of  the  Son  of  God.  The  history  of  the  last 
three  hundred  years  is  a  demonstration  of  the 
truth  of  this  proposition.  Where  is  German 
Lutheranism,  and  French  Calvinism,  and  Eng- 
lish Presbyterianism  to-day  ?  They  are  drift- 
ina:  far  out  on  the  broad  ocean  of  Unitarianism. 
But  however  subtle  the  temptations  through 
which  the  Church  may  have  to  pass  in  the 
present  or  in  the  future,  we  need  not  doubt 
that  the  Spirit  of  Truth  which  abides  with  her 
will  enable  her  to  answer  all  the  suggestions 
of  the  tempter,  as  she  answered  them  at  Ni- 
caea,  and  as  she  has  answered  them  in  every 
crisis  which  has  overtaken  her  faith :  "  Get 
thee  hence,  Satan  :  for  it  is  written,  Thou  shaft 
worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt 
thou  serve."     Her  faithfulness  wijl  indeed  in- 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  NIC^A.  IO9 

crease  against  her  the  hatred  of  the  prince  of 
this  world,  the  spirit  that  now  worketh  in  the 
children  of  disobedience  ;  and  she  has  dctLibt- 
lessly  many  a  battle  yet  to  fight  in  defence  of 
the  honour  of  her  Divine  Head.  We  must  not 
look  for  a  cessation  of  her  warfare  so  long  as 
she  is  in  this  apostate  world,  "  The.  dragon  is 
wroth  with  the  woman,  and  maketh  war  with 
the  remnant  of  her  seed,  which  keep  the  com- 
mandments of  God,  and  have  the  testimony  of 
Jesus  Christ."  *  Nor  must  we  be  affrighted  by 
the  noise  of  our  adversary,  or  by  the  apparent 
greatness  of  his  numbers  and  power.  We  may 
go  forth  to  the  conflict  with  perfect  confidence, 
being  assured  that  as  Christ  has  been  victori- 
ous in  every  struggle  with  His  enemy  in  the 
past.  He  will  certainly  be  victorious  in  every 
battle  which  is  yet  to  be  decided,  and  that  we 
who  have  fought  faithfully  under  His  leader- 
ship, will  also  be  partakers  in  the  glory  of  the 
final  triumph :  "  The  kingdom  and  dominion, 
and  the  greatness  of  the  kingdom  under  the 
whole  heaven,  shall  be  given  to  the  people  of 
the  saints  of  the  Most  High,  whose  kingdom 
is  an  everlasting  kingdom,  and  all  dominions 
shall  serve  and  obey  him."  f 


*  Revelation  xii.  17.  f  Daniel  vii.  27. 


Z]K  TxvQt  Council  of  Constantinople* 


LECTURE  III. 

THE  RT.  REVEREND  WILLIAM  ANDREW  LEONARD, 

D.D., 

Bishop  of  Ohio. 

THE  FIRST  COUNCIL   OF  CONSTANTI- 
NOPLE. 

It  is  one  of  the  strange  anomalies  of  history 
that  the  King  of  Love,  our  Lord  and  Saviour, 
should  have  been  the  cause  for  contention,  and 
the  object  of  bitterest  conflict.  And  yet  He  an- 
nounced, with  pathos  in  the  prophecy,  "I  came 
not  to  bring  peace,  but  a  sword  ;  "  foretelling 
to  His  disciples  and  His  friends,  that  the  world, 
as  well  as  they,  should  "  be  offended  "  because  of 
Himself.  But  upon  second  thought  this  is  not 
so  remarkable  a  paradox,  since  all  that  He  rep- 
resents, and  all  that  He  teaches,  is  the  oppo- 
nent of  whatever  is  evil ;  and  finds  its  foe  in 
whatever  is  corrupt,  untrue,  and  unrighteous. 
The  interpenetration  of  sunlight  within  the 
slimy  holes,  and  the  rotting  recesses  of  the  cav- 
ern, the  morass,  and  the  jungle,  arouses  into 
confusion,  and  bestirs  into  venomous  action,  the 
8 


114     FIRST  COUNCIL    OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

reptile  life  thus  discovered.  The  Persian  God 
of  goodness  is  not  only  on  the  aggressive  but 
also  on  the  defensive  side  of  an  eternal  warfare 
with  the  God  of  evil.  The  principles  of  liberty, 
morality,  and  progress,  are  met  in  our  daily  ex- 
perience, by  an  enemy  born  of  hatred,  and  de- 
nial, and  by  a  leagued  hostility,  arrayed  in  the 
interests  of  degradation,  unholiness,  and  retro- 
gression. Christ  stands  with  flashing  sword 
uplifted,  at  the  centre  of  all  time,  and  all  life  — 
and  He  Himself  is  the  object  of  the  Devil's 
attack.  His  doctrines  are  the  walls  for  the 
enemy  of  truth  to  besiege.  His  Church  is  the 
fortress  asfainst  which  the  "  gates  of  hell "  send 
forth  legionaries  of  malignant  antagonists,  and 
this  shall  continue  through  time,  till  victory  is 
finally  assured,  and  "  God  shall  be  all  in  all." 
The  six  accepted  General  Councils  of  the  ancient 
Church  seem  to  be  great  battle-grounds,  with 
the  Christ  irradiant  and  glorious,  as  the  Stand- 
ard about  which  the  conflict  rages.  They  were 
primarily  convened  to  defend  the  Lord  of 
Heaven  and  earth,  against  the  subtle  and  the 
masked  approaches  of  the  enemy  ;  and  these 
campaigns  seem  in  a  certain  sense  to  be  the 
counterparts  and  corollary  of  the  terrible 
temptation  of  Christ  in  the  wilderness  of 
Quarantania.  As  though  Satan  drew  his  fall- 
en angels  and  agents  together,  for  a  series  of 


FIRST  COUNCIL    OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.       II5 

assaults  on  the  battlements  of  heaven;  whose 
enginery,  and  plan,  and  concentred  force  should 
be  extraordinary  and  overwhelming  ;  and  ever 
with  the  vain  hope  that  success  might  crown 
the  result,  even  though  God  had  promised  to 
protect  His  own.  And  as  these  onslaughts 
were  made,  so,  by  a  wise  and  notable  and  firm 
defence  the  fortress  was  preserved,  the  treas- 
ure was  guarded,  and  the  Divine  Lord  and 
Captain  of  Salvation,  surrounded  by  His  valiant 
and  faithful  soldiers  and  servants,  remained  un- 
scathed and  triumphant  in  the  integrity  of  His 
office,  and  of  His  Being, 

To  understand  the  reason  for  these  General 
Councils  aright,  and  to  realize  their  value  and 
importance  to  us,  we  must  remember  the  fact 
that  they  were  the  great  authorized  arming  of 
the  Church  militant  for  the  truth's  sake,  and  for 
the  defence  of  the  Faith  of  the  Christians  in  the 
Incarnation  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  in  each  sepa- 
rate instance  their  definitions  and  statements 
were  final,  and  unalterable,  and  they  became  the 
watchwords  of  the  religion  of  our  Master,  and 
we  are  the  inheritors  of  all  that  they  so  rev- 
erently prepared  and  preserved. 

The  Christians  of  the  East — i.e.,  those  who 
lived  in  Asia  Minor,  in  Palestine,  in  Egypt — 
were  by  a  characteristic  temperament  prone 
to   argument,  and   fond    of   philosophical   and 


Il6      FIJiST  COUNCIL    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

metaphysical  theorizing.  They  differed  entire- 
ly from  the  people  of  the  West  —  those  who 
dwelt  in  Italy,  G'aul,  Spain,  or  Britain.  The 
Western  Christians  were  more  practical ;  giv- 
en to  plans  of  organization  and  administration, 
and  political  work,  in  Church  or  state.  They 
were  more  commercial  and  enterprising,  more 
active  physically,  and  less  meditative  and  spec- 
ulative, than  the  poetizing  people  of  the  warm- 
er East  and  South. 

Therefore  we  find  that  the  mystical  mind  of 
the  Oriental  Christian  would  fix  its  methods  of 
induction  and  deduction,  its  subtle  logic,  and 
its  subtler  philosophic  reasoning,  upon  theo- 
ries concerning  the  Being  of  God.  And  fol- 
lowing along  the  lines  of  those  special  schools 
of  thought  to  which  he  may  have  belonged, 
whether  Platonic,  Socratic,  or  Gnostic,  the 
conclusions  reached  at  last  were  often  subver- 
sive of  the  simple  truth  of  the  Gospel.  Thus 
the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  of  Jesus  Christ 
became,  I  repeat,  the  battle-field  over  which 
these  warring  philosophers  fought ;  and  as  one 
leader  would  attack  the  Person  of  our  Lord, 
and  another  leader  would  assault  the  Natures 
of  Christ ;  as  one  set  of  offenders  would  cry  out 
against  His  Divinity,  and  another  depreciate 
His  Humanity  ;  these  General  Councils  were 
summoned  by   the  highest  known  authority — 


FIRST  COUNCIL    OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.       \\^ 

viz.,  the  Emperor  himself ;  and  the  Patriarchs 
and    Bishops   would,    under    the    direct   guid- 
ance  of   the   inspiring    Holy   Ghost,  set  forth 
the  renewed,  and  more  explicit  statements  of 
the  indefectible  "Faith  once  delivered  to  the 
Saints."     To  these  Councils  all  the  Bishops  of 
the  world  were  summoned,  and  the  undivided 
Christian  Church  thus  represented  in  its  plen- 
ary and   oecumenical   character,  could    render 
unquestionable  verdict,  and  forever  close  the 
matter  at  issue   with  the  decrees  then  formu- 
lated.    Remarkable  is  the  story  of  those  three 
or  four  hundred  years  from  the  second  to  the 
fifth  centuries,  and  fierce  were  the  contentions, 
widespread  was  the  interest,  and  long  and  per- 
sistent were  the  discordant  debates  and  angry 
discussions,  over  these  theological  terms  and 
dogmatic  differences.     They  were  the  popular 
themes  for  every-day  conversations;    they  oc- 
cupied the  time   of   young   and    old,  rich  and 
poor,  wise  and  foolish,  high  and  low.     The  sol- 
diers in  the  barracks,  the  sailors  lounging  about 
the  docks,  the  ballad-singers  at  the  street  cor- 
ners,  the  lecturers   on  the    public   rostra,    the 
learned    doctors   in    the    halls    and   groves  of 
philosophy,  the  Priests   and  Bishops   in  their 
pulpits,  found  these  questions  the  burning  and 
vital  topics  of  the  day  and  hour.     And  as  a  re- 
sult of  these  several  attempts  at  popular  theo- 


Il8      FIRST  COUNCIL    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

rizing  and  dogmatizing,  from  time  to  time  some 
powerful  and  persuasive  master  of  dialectics 
would  reach  a  conclusion  pleasing  to  the  mul- 
titude and  lead  them  in  his  train.  And  so  Arius 
heads  a  party  that  boldly  denies  that  Jesus  was 
truly  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  ApoUinarius  arises 
and  denies  that  Christ  possessed  a  human  soul. 
And  Nestorius  rends  Christ  asunder  and  divides 
Him  into  two  Persons  ;  and  Eutyches  confounds 
and  mixes  the  human  and  Divine  natures  of  our 
Lord.  Thus  did  the  early  heresies,  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  come  into  existence.  And  to  con- 
tradict them,  and  condemn  their  authors,  and 
reaffirm  and  establish  the  Faith  in  these  special 
particulars  and  on  these  several  points,  and  to 
prepare  the  Creeds  we  have  inherited,  were  the 
General  Councils  brought  together. 

The  doctrines  of  the  heretic  Arius  had 
spread  rapidly,  throughout  the  entire  East- 
ern world.  After  his  defeat  and  excommu- 
nication, and  after  the  formal  publication  of  the 
orthodox  Creed  by  the  Council  of  Niccea,  his 
teachings  continued  to  be  acceptable  with  all 
sorts  and  conditions  of  men.  Indeed,  it  was 
unpopular  to  hold  the  Catholic  truth  concern- 
ing Christ ;  and  the  little  groups  of  faithful 
ones  were  very  much  like  the  early  Christians 
of  apostolic  days,  compelled  to  associate  in 
communities,  for   self  -  protection   and    preser- 


FIRST  COUNCIL    OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.       Up 

vation.  The  Emperors  themselves  became 
Arians  ;  and  the  day  of  Christianity  seemed  to 
be  overcast  with  an  ominous  cloud  which 
threatened  to  extinguish  its  light.  But  at  last 
God  raised  up  a  strong  defender  in  the  person 
of  the  Empei^or  Theodosius,  who  shortly  after 
his  coronation,  in  the  year  380,  received  Holy 
Baptism.  He  was  evidently,  a  man  of  indomit- 
able will,  and  of  that  vigorous  sort  of  courage, 
which  being  sure  of  its  cause,  proceeds  direct- 
ly to  the  accomplishment  of  its  object.  Such 
men  are  natural  governors  and  their  fearless- 
ness is  applauded  by  the  common  people,  who 
readily  and  eagerly  see  commanding  virtues, 
and  accept  the  directions  advertised  by  their 
superiors.  Born  of  orthodox  Christian  parents  ; 
reared  to  the  profession  of  arms  ;  victorious 
over  the  barbaric  hordes  of  Huns  and  Goths 
that  swarmed  down  from  their  northern  fast- 
nesses upon  his  fair  dominions  ;  a  hardened  sol- 
dier— we  should  scarcely  look  for  a  champion 
of  Religion  in  such  a  warrior  and  ruler.  Yet 
when  Theodosius  assumed  the  throne  and  be- 
came Emperor  of  the  East,  among  his  first 
edicts  was  the  announcement  that  the  pure 
and  undefiled  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
as  set  forth  in  the  Council  of  Niceea,  must  be 
the  religion  of  his  subjects.  Those  were  days 
when   men   were   not   allowed    to   worship   as 


120      FIRST  COUNCIL    OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

they  pleased,  and  believe  whatsoever  they 
might  choose.  The  pagans  must  give  up  the 
adoration  of  Serapis  in  Alexandria ;  the  Jews 
must  hold  their  ecclesiastical  methods  in  abey- 
ance ;  the  followers  of  Arius,  or  of  any  other 
heretic,  must  cease  to  gather  together  in  public 
places ;  their  churches  must  be  turned  over 
to  Priests  sound  in  the  Faith  ;  and  their  Dio- 
ceses must  be  vacated,  and  Bishops  of  unques- 
tioned integrity  of  belief  must  be  inducted.  It 
was  certainly  not  a  tolerant  age,  and  the 
measures  adopted  were  indeed  heroic  ;  yet  it 
seems  to  have  been  a  retaliation  upon  those 
who  had  themselves  been  bitter  persecutors  of 
the  Church.  At  this  time  the  city  of  Constan- 
tinople, seated  queen-like  on  the  blue  shores  of 
the  Straits  of  Bosporus,  was  the  residence  of 
the  Emperor.  It  became  the  capital  of  the 
East,  as  Rome  was  the  mistress  of  the  West. 
The  Bishop  of  Constantinople  was  henceforth 
to  hold  becoming  rank  next  to  the  Bishop  of  Im- 
perial Rome,  and  his  rights  must  be  announced, 
and  his  place  accorded.  But  Damophilus,  its 
chief  Pastor,  unfortunately  proved  to  be  an 
Arian.  Therefore  he  was  driven  from  his  seat ; 
and  the  holy  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  an  aged 
and  devout  servant  of  our  Lord,  was  reluctantly 
brought  from  his  humble  post  to  stem  if  pos- 
sible the  rising  tide  of  error. 


^       FIRST  COUNCIL    OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.      121 

Old  Gregory  was  a  famous  preacher.     His 
learning  was   profound,  and  his  spiritual   life 
one  of  great  beauty.     With  head  bent  low  upon 
his  breast,  and  in  plain,  unattractive  garb,  this 
venerable    prelate  and  theologian  clearly  and 
convincingly  preached    upon    the    doctrine    of 
the  Trinity  to  the  multitudes  that  thronged  to 
hear  his  loving  words.     At  first  he  undertook 
his  missionary  labors  in  a  dwelling-house,  and 
called  it  Anastasia,  the  "  Place  of  the  Resur- 
rection of  the  Faith."     He  endeavored  to  rally 
and  gather  around  him  the  scattered  and  be- 
wildered adherents  of  the  Nicene  doctrine  con- 
cerning Christ;  and  in  the  midst  of  so  much 
that  was  false,  though  popular,  his  single  de- 
sire was  to  "  witness  "  to  the  inheritance  handed 
down  by  the  Fathers.     But  his  experience  was 
hard,  and  he  became  for  a  while  a  sufferer  for 
the  cause.     He  was  dragged  before  the   civil 
authorities  by  the  Arians,  as  a  disturber  of  the 
peace  ;  he  was  insulted  by  the  monks  and  vir- 
gins ;  and  the  rabble  treated  him  with  ignominy 
and  raihngs.     Yet  he  patiently  held  his  peace, 
and  taught  daily  the  lessons  of  the  Divine  Mas- 
ter.    He  was  even  wounded  in  the  house  of  his 
friends,  for  one  Maximus  who  had  professed  to 
be  his  disciple,  but  who  proved  to  be  a  worldly 
ecclesiastical  adventurer,  was  moved  easily  to 
an  act  of  treachery — and  of  sacrilege. 


122      FIRST  COUNCIL    OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

It  is  difficult  for  us  to  comprehend  such  con- 
fusion and  such  revolutionary  conditions  as 
existed  among  those  who  professed  and  called 
themselves  Christians.  Intruding  into  Con- 
stantinople at  this  time  came  a  band  of  Bishops 
from  Egypt,  and  led  by  Peter  of  Alexandria: 
they  took  Maximus  into  their  confidence,  se- 
duced him  from  Gregory,  his  friend  and  Father, 
and  stealing  into  the  church  by  night,  conse- 
crated him  Bishop  of  the  city  and  Diocese. 
Here  then  was  a  conflict  of  authorities  and 
a  radical  and  distressing  evil,  requiring  much 
Christian  forbearance  on  the  one  hand,  and  posi- 
tive, unquestioned  decision  on  the  other  hand. 
But  besides  these  practical  troubles,  serious  theo- 
logical perplexities  had  arisen  into  prominence. 

The  Arian  heresy  had  been  condemned  by 
a  General  Council,  and  repudiated  by  the  Em- 
peror, but  multiplied  errors  sprang  up  like 
rank  growths  of  noxious  weeds  in  the  garden 
of  the  Lord. 

Apollinarius  was  the  Bishop  of  Laodicasa,  a 
city  of  Asia  Minor  lying  far  to  the  east  of  Con- 
stantinople, and  he  appears  upon  the  stage  at 
this  time  as  the  leader  of  a  new  and  most  dan- 
gerous doctrine.  And  here  it  might  be  well  to 
state,  that  in  those  distant  days  every  city  of  any 
importance  had  its  own  Bishop.  Dioceses  were 
almost  as  small  as  some  of  our  modern  parishes, 


FIRST  COUNCIL    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE.      123 

and  not  at  all  like  unto  the  vast  jurisdictions 
over  which  the  Church  in  this  country  has 
placed  her  Apostolic  governors.  So  that  there 
were  great  numbers  of  Bishops  scattered  over 
the  length  and  breadth  of  the  then  known  Chris- 
tian and  civilized  world.  This  fact  will  some- 
what explain  the  cause  for  so  many  warring  and 
antagonistic  factions,  and  schools  of  theological 
expression  ;  and  it  will  give  us  better  compre- 
hension of  the  personal  rivalries,  the  spread  of 
woridliness  among  the  ecclesiastics,  and  the 
bitter  feuds  between  those  who  should  have 
been  brethren  in  a  common  cause. 

The  picture  of  the  era  which  we  are  hastily 
scanning,  is  one  of  the  most  bewildering  and 
confused,  drawn  by  the  pencil  of  history  ;  for 
assuredly  peace  had  fled  from  the  Temple  of 
Christ,  and  the  polemical  warfare  of  the  doc- 
trinaires was  at  times  degraded  to  deeds  of 
violence  and  of  blood.  With  so  large  a  num- 
ber of  Bishops,  it  is  little  wonder  that  many  oc- 
cupants of  those  primitive  sees  were  men  of 
unworthy  characters  and  unspiritual  lives. 
Numbers  of  them  were  unscrupulous,  and 
many  were  without  doctrinal  conviction  or 
stamina,  so  that  here  and  there,  as  already  indi- 
cated, when  a  superior  intellect,  or  a  Bishop 
with  dominating  force  or  revolutionary  genius, 
asserted    himself,  the   weaker  and    less   stable 


124      FIRST  COUNCIL    OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

characters  clustered  about  his  standard,  and 
became  noisy,  unprincipled  disciples  of  the  new 
definitions,  or  the  arrogant  and  insolent  claims 
of  their  regarded  master.  Troublous  times 
they  were,  and  had  been  since  the  Nicene 
Council  promulged  its  decrees;  and  so  multi- 
plied were  the  sects,  and  so  outspoken  the 
schools  of  schism,  and  so  defiant  the  religious 
rebellions,  each  marshalled  and  organized,  and 
each  bearing  the  name  of  its  accepted  chieftain, 
that  it  was  becoming  evident  to  the  faithful 
that  the  Emperor  must  convene  another  oecu- 
menical assemblage,  to  reaffirm  the  truth  and 
to  silence  the  noisy  wranglers.  There  were 
Arians  and  Semi-arians,  and  Manichceans,  and 
Anomoeans  and  Sabellians,  and  Photinians,  and 
Luciferians,  and  a  score  of  other  followings,  each 
with  its  motto,  and  its  special  or  peculiar  shade 
of  denial,  opposition,  or  unbelief.  And  the  re- 
view  of  the  period  might  seem  to  us,  of  this 
nineteenth  century,  as  a  delirium  of  religion, 
did  we  not  realize  the  grotesqueness  of  a  Chris- 
tendom in  these  days,  divided,  and  subdivided, 
by  a  shallow  separation  that  disintegrates,  if  it 
may  not  destroy.  And  now  Apollinarius,  the 
Bishop  of  Laodicasa,  comes  forward  with  his 
adherents,  and  he  takes  the  very  opposite  course 
from  that  followed  by  his  distinguished  here- 
siarch  Arius — "  by  maiming  the  humanity  "  of 


FIRST  COUNCIL    OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.       125 

our  Blessed  Lord.  Arius  had  repudiated  the 
Divinity  of  Christ,  ApoUinarius  contested 
against  this  heresy  with  all  his  vigor,  but  in  so 
doing  he  disturbed  the  equable  division  of  truth, 
and  announced  that  our  Lord  was  not  possessed 
of  a  perfect  human  nature,  and  stated  that  He 
was  "  not  perfect  man." 

The  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  pre- 
sents Christ  before  the  world  as  being  one 
Person,  and  possessing  two  perfect  and  com- 
plete Natures  —  Divine  and  human.  Homel}'- 
is  the  illustration,  that  would  indicate  a  bowl 
containing  water  and  oil  in  equal  proportions ; 
separate,  unmixed,  not  confused,  as  illumin- 
ing this  Faith,  of  the  dual  nature  of  our  Lord 
held  in  the  single  Personality  ;  and  yet  it  may 
assist  us  by  its  very  simplicity.  ApoUinarius, 
we  repeat,  maimed  the  perfect  Jiumau  nature  of 
Christ,  though  he  held  against  Arius  the  Di- 
vinity of  our  Lord.  He  was  a  Platonist  in  his 
philosophic  and  theological  views  and  methods 
of  reasoning.  A  man  of  rich  and  varied  culti- 
vation, and  like  his  father,  a  skilled  rhetorician. 
He  wrote  extensively,  and  was  an  author  of  no 
mean  reputation.  As  a  controversialist  in  the 
days  of  the  apostate  Emperor  Julian,  he  pre- 
pared ingenious  tracts  and  pamphlets  to  over- 
throw the  heresies  that  prevailed,  and  to  en- 
large the  domain  of  Christian  truth. 


126      FIRST  COUNCIL    OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

How  sad  it  is,  that  in  his  eagerness  to  main- 
tain the  standard  against  one  wing  of  the  ene- 
mies' hosts,  he  should  have  been  flanked  and 
captured  on  the  other  side  of  these  momentous 
issues.  Apollinarius  was  genial  and  winsome 
of  manner,  and  his  brilliant  intellectual  gifts,  so 
zealously  employed  in  the  defence  of  the  Church 
against  Arianism,  won  for  him  the  honor  and 
privilege  of  close  friendship  with  the  great  Ni- 
cene  champion  and  doctor,  Athanasius.  But 
let  us  examine  more  critically  this  teaching  so 
subversive  of  the  Faith.  And  when  we  real- 
ize that  in  our  own  times,  there  are  teachers 
and  preachers  who,  in  conspicuous  places,  are 
led  into  just  such  dangerous  lines  of  opinion 
and  utterance,  the  importance  of  a  clear  expo- 
sition of  what  we  ought  to  avoid,  as  well  as  re- 
ject, is  quite  manifest.  Apollinarius  alarmed 
the  orthodox  of  his  time,  by  denying  that  Christ 
had  a  perfect  human  nature.  He  argued,  that 
if  Jesus  were  possessed  of  a  human  soul,  i.e.,  a 
rational  and  intellectual  soul  (i^oO?),  He  must 
with  it  have  a  freedom  of  will,  and  therefore  a 
tendency  to  sin.  In  order,  then,  to  reduce  this 
dilemma  to  a  working  basis,  Apollinarius  de- 
clared that  the  Divine  X6709  took  the  place  of 
the  human  soul,  thus  controlling  our  Lord 
against  the  possibilities  of  falling  into  evil. 
But  if  this  were  true,  our  Master  would  cease 


FIRST  COUNCIL    OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.       12/ 

to  touch  US  in  our  great  human  need.  He 
would  cease  to  be  the ''  Daysman  "  between  God 
and  man ;  and  the  precious  sympathy  between 
an  elder  Brother  "  tempted  in  all  points  as  we 
are,"  and  ourselves,  would  become  almost  an 
impossibility. 

ApoUinarius   had    wounded  the    Lord's  hu- 
manity, and  he  believed  that  he  had  found  a 
scriptural  and    defensible    basis   on    which    he 
might  build  up  his  theory.     This  then  it  was, 
that  agitated  the  guardians  of  the  sacred  de- 
posit ;    and  for  the   final,  authoritative  settle- 
ment of  so  momentous  a  question,  the  Church 
herself   must   speak  with   infallible    directness 
through  the  mouth  of  a  General  Council,  in- 
spired  by  God  the   Holy   Ghost.      That  our 
Lord    had    a    human   body,   no    man      could 
rationally    deny,    although    ApoUinarius    had 
gone  so  far  as  to  maintain  that  His  flesh  came 
down  from  heaven,  and  was  not  taken  by  Him 
of  the  substance  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  (cf.  Rob- 
ertson's "  Hist,  of  the  Christian  Church,"  vol.  i., 
p.  378).     But  that  He  had  a  perfect  human  soul 
appears    from     His   "  increasing   in   wisdom " 
(Luke  ii.  52) ;  from  the  possibility  of  His  being 
ignorant  (Mark  xiii.  32),  which  could  not  be 
true   of    Him  considered   only  in  His    Divine 
nature  ;    from  His  being  liable  to  temptation 
(Matt.  iv.  I,  and  Heb.  iv.  15  ;  from  His  feeling 


128      FIRST  COUNCIL    OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

sorrow  and  sympathy  (Luke  xix.  41,  and  John 
xi.  35,  and  Matt,  xxiii.  37,  38) ;  from  the  separa- 
tion of  His  Soul  from  His  Body  at  death,  the 
Soul  descending  to  Hades,  while  the  Body  was 
laid  in  the  grave  (Acts  ii.  27).  And  as  the 
nature  of  His  Godhead  was  not  changed  (God 
not  being  capable  of  change)  by  union  with 
His  manhood,  so  also  the  nature  of  His  man- 
hood was  not  changed  by  being  taken  into  His 
Godhead,  further  than  that  it  was  thereby  ex- 
alted, ennobled,  glorified.  For  the  object  of 
God's  taking  flesh,  was  that  He  might  take  to 
Himself  a  nature  like  our  own,  in  which  He 
might  be  tempted  with  our  temptations,  lia- 
ble to  our  sorrows  and  infirmities,  and  subject 
to  our  sufferings  and  death.  The  properties, 
therefore,  of  His  human  nature  were  not  sunk 
nor  absorbed  in  His  Divine  nature,  any  more 
than  His  Divine  nature  was  altered  or  cor- 
rupted by  His  human  nature  "  (cf.  "  Exposition 
of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,"  by  Bishop  Browne, 
pp.  ^6,  yy,  American  Edition ;  also  consult 
Bishop  Forbes's  "  Explanation  of  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles,"  on  Article  H.). 

But  the  sad  defection  of  Apollinarius  was  not 
the  only  trouble  that  distressed  the  Church  at 
this  period,  for  the  sect  of  Macedonians  had 
marshalled  their  ranks  under  the  leader  from 
whom  they  took  their  name,  and  they  denied 


FIRST  COUNCIL    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE.      1 29 

the  Personality  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
Nicene  Creed  as  issued,  A.D.  325,  had  closed 
its  statement  with  the  words,  "  We  believe  in 
the  Holy  Ghost" — and  now  some  further  an- 
nouncements must  be  prepared  on  this  essen- 
tial doctrine.  Macedonius  had  been  the  Patri- 
arch of  Constantinople.  He  was  a  man  of 
violent  temper,  a  bitter  partisan,  and  a  vin- 
dictive persecutor.  Ambitious,  unscrupulous, 
keen,  and  unyielding,  he  headed  an  x\rian  fac- 
tion, and  succeeded-,  by  murderous  uprisings 
and  by  bloodshed,  in  expelling  the  orthodox 
Bishop  of  the  city,  and  assumed  the  Episcopate 
himself.  Quite  unlike  the  wise,  scholarly  Apol- 
linarius,  he  was  a  leader  of  turbulent  factions, 
and  marshalled  his  followers,  who  had  been 
called  Pneumatomachi,  or  "  Fighters  against 
the  Spirit,"  to  their  sad  warfare  against  the 
Church  and  her  belief.  At  last  he  was  himself 
overcome  and  expelled,  and  though  he  did  not 
long  survive  his  deposition,  his  heresy  troubled 
the  faithful  for  many  years.  Indeed,  it  survives 
to-day,  and  has  moulded  the  conception  of  the 
work  and  office  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  minds 
of  many  Christian  people.  For  the  Divine 
Spirit  is  not  an  afflatus,  a  breath,  an  influence,  a 
poetic  enthusiasm,  a  vague  diffusion  of  intan- 
gible force  ;  but  the  Hoh'  Ghost,  the  Third  Per- 
son of  the  adorable  Godhead,  is  a  Being  who 
9 


130      FIRST  COUNCIL    OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

works,  who  operates  His  sanctifying  offices  in 
the  Church  and  in  the  individual.  We  may 
not  "  grieve  Him  "  (Eph.  iv.  30).  "  He  maketh 
intercession  for  us  "  (Rom.  viii.  26).  "  He  know- 
eth  all  things  "(i  Cor.  ii.  11).  "He  divideth 
Spiritual  gifts  to  men"  (i  Cor.  xii.  11).  "He 
speaks  to  men  ;  to  apostles  and  prophets  "  (Acts 
X.  19,  and  xiii.  2).  "  He  is  sent  by  our  Lord  to 
guide  into  all  truth  "  (John  xiv.,  xv.,  and  xvi.). 
"  His  gifts  dwell  in  men  at  their  baptism  " 
(Matt,  xxviii.  19),  their  confirmation  (Acts  viii. 
17),  their  ordinations  (John  xx.  22),  and  He  is 
coequal  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  (Matt, 
xxviii.  19).  The  Person  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  then, 
was  attacked  blasphemously  by  Macedonianism. 
And  thus  it  is  apparent,  by  this  study  of  the 
manifold  difficulties  which  beset  the  Christians 
of  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  that  the  time 
had  come  for  a  final  settlement  of  the  disputes, 
the  wrangling,  and  the  denials  of  the  age. 
Bishops  were  intruding  into  the  jurisdictions  of 
their  neighbors.  Confusion  as  to  precedence 
and  rank  produced  sad  conflicts  of  authority ; 
heresies  would  destroy  the  human  nature  of 
our  Lord ;  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost  had  been 
insulted  and  rejected.  Ah !  there  was  great 
need  for  earnest  prayer,  for  searchings  of  heart, 
for  brave  defence,  for  patient  and  wise  consul- 
tations, and  for  supernatural  guidance,  and  un- 


FIRST  COUNCIL    OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.       I3I 

mistakable  definition.  And  so  the  day  for  the 
great  Council  dawned  upon  the  disturbed  com- 
munity in  fair  Constantinople.  Up  to  the  Em- 
peror's palace,  on  the  second  morning  of  the 
shining  month  of  May,  came  the  Bishops  who 
had  been  assembling  for  some  weeks  previous. 
Attended  by  their  deacons  and  faithful  presby- 
ters, with  a  becoming  pomp  and  an  impressive- 
nessof  demeanor,  they  gathered  in  the  audience 
chambers  of  the  imperial  house.  Interesting 
and  distinguished  personages  they  were.  There 
was  S.  Meletius,  of  Antioch,  meek  in  his  man- 
ner, spiritual  in  his  look,  faithful  in  his  adher- 
ence ;  and  yonder  came  S.  Gregory,  of  Nyssa 
in  Cappadocia,  intense  and  eager  in  disposi- 
tion, humble  in  bearing,  formerly  a  monk  in  the 
umbrageous  hill  country  of  the  Iris,  the  brother 
of  S.  Basil,  the  friend  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzen, 
and  one  of  that  renowned  theological  trio, 
called  "  the  three  great  Cappadocians."  Here, 
too,  might  be  seen  S.  Cyril,  the  Bishop  of 
Jerusalem,  almost  a  martyr  for  his  convictions, 
and  receiving  the  applause  and  acclaim  of  his 
brethren  as  he  took  his  place  in  the  conclave. 
Apostolic  men  were  come  from  Iconium,  and 
Tarsus,  and  Csesarea ;  men  of  fortitude  and  of 
a  well-disciplined  determination,  Avho  were 
read}'  if  needs  be  to  "  lay  down  their  lives  "  for 
the  sake  of  the  truth.     One  hundred  and  fifty  of 


132      FIRST  COUNCIL    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

these  fathers  of  old  had  taken  their  appointed 
seats,  and  yet  still  another  contingent  enters  in, 
to  discuss  the  mighty  topics  soon  to  be  sub- 
mitted. They  seem  to  form  a  group  by  them- 
selves, and  appear  to  hold  aloof  from  the 
others  now  assembled.  Thirty-six  Bishops  are 
counted,  distinguished  by  their  robes  of  office, 
and  exciting  unwonted  interest  by  their  pres- 
ence. They  are  the  adherents  of  the  Macedo- 
nian views,  and  have  come  in  a  body  from  the 
dioceses  of  the  Hellespont,  determined  to  de- 
fend their  cause,  and  to  explain  the  doctrines 
and  practices  of  their  Churches.  The  Bishops 
present  were  all  Eastern  prelates ;  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  Damasus,  was  not  in  the  Council, 
nor  was  he  represented,  because  the  Emperor 
Theodosius  had  no  authority  in  the  West,  his 
government  being  divided  with  Gratian,  as  as- 
sociate on  the  double  throne.  And,  now,  the 
assembled  ecclesiastics  take  their  positions  in 
a  regularity  of  order.  The  Bishops  sat  in  a 
circle,  ranked  according  to  their  provinces. 
The  attending  priests  were  grouped  behind, 
and  the  deacons  occupied  lower  sedilia  in  front. 
What  a  solemn  hush  fell  upon  this  august  gath- 
ering, as  the  Emperor,  clad  in  his  royal  gar- 
ments, arose  to  appoint  a  president  for  the 
body.  He  had  had  a  strange  dream  in  the 
years  gone   by.      He    had  seen   in   his   night- 


FIRST  COUNCIL    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE.       133 

visions  a  holy  servant  of  God  approaching  him, 
after  his  victory  over  the  barbarians ;  and  by 
this  saintly  person  he  seemed  to  be  crowned 
with  a  golden  circle,  and  the  royal  purple  put 
upon  his  shoulders.  He  had  never  met  S. 
Meletius,  but  when  his  eye  rested  upon  the 
good  man  he  quickly  recognized  him,  and  run- 
ning to  him  while  the  Bishops  looked  on  in 
amazement  and  wonder,  he  kissed  his  eyes,  his 
mouth,  his  breast,  and  the  hand  that  had  placed 
the  diadem  on  his  head  in  the  dream.  Explain- 
ing then  his  actions,  he  expressed  desire  that 
Meletius  should  preside  over  their  deliberations. 
Their  first  business  was  to  consider  the  case  of 
the  intrusion  of  Maximus  into  the  See  of  Con- 
stantinople;  and  after  full  trial  they  declared 
his  consecration  void,  and  debarred  him  and  his 
acts.  They  then,  upon  the  nomination  of  the 
Emperor,  selected  the  lowly  missionary  Greg- 
ory Nazianzen,  whose  services  had  been  so  sal- 
utary in  the  great  metropolis,  as  the  rightful 
Bishop  of  the  See.  In  vain  did  he  protest,  in 
vain  were  his  tears  and  groans;  he  was  old, 
broken  with  labors,  and  he  had  no  desire  for 
so  burdensome  a  post.  But  the  Council  would 
not  heed  him,  and  with  brilliant  ceremonials, 
he  was  soon  thereafter  inducted  into  the  place 
from  which  he  shrank.  Yet  his  career  was  but 
brief,  for  great  opposition  soon  developed  ;  S. 


134      FIRST  COUNCIL    OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

Meletius  died,  and  was  buried  with  much  pomp ; 
beloved  and  revered  by  all  who  knew  him  ;  and 
the  Macedonian  Bishops,  led  by  Eleusius  of  Cy- 
zicus,  broke  forth  into  loud  declamations  against 
Gregory,  which  were  echoed  by  the  Egyptian 
Bishops,  because  they  deemed  his  choice  un- 
desirable and  uncanonical.  The  aged  man 
gladly  availed  himself  of  these  differences,  he 
longed  for  peace  and  for  retirement ;  and  going 
to  the  Emperor,  he  pleaded  with  him  for  re- 
lease from  the  unhappy  position  into  which  he 
had  been  forced.  His  request  was  granted,  the 
Council  agreed  to  the  decision,  and  in  a  fare- 
well sermon  of  extraordinary  eloquence  and 
pathos,  he  relinquished  his  place,  and  aban- 
doned the  Council. 

Timothy,  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  had  been 
foremost  in  the  opposition  to  Gregory,  and  it 
is  apparent  that  he  became  the  next  president 
of  the  Council.  But  it  could  have  been  only 
a  temporary  chairmanship,  for  an  election  Avas 
ordered,  and  Nectarius  was  chosen  to  the 
vacant  Diocese  and  to  the  head  of  the  Synod. 
He  was  a  man  of  graceful  action,  venerable  in 
years  and  appearance.  His  character  was  gen- 
tle and  generous,  though  somewhat  worldly ;  a 
patrician  and  a  praetor,  born  in  the  free  city  of 
Tarsus.  But  he  was  an  unbaptized  layman. 
It  is  singular  that  such  an  one  should  have  been 


FIRST  COUNCIL    OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.       1 35 

both  nominated  by  the  Emperor  and  elected 
by  the  Bishops,  but  so  it  was.  He  was  imme- 
diately baptized,  and  while  still  wearing  the 
white  robe  of  a  neophyte,  was  ordained,  and 
consecrated  to  the  high  office  and  order  of 
Bishop  of  Constantinople.  And  now  the  seri- 
ous labors  of  the  gathered  Fathers  were  being 
daily  developed.  Long,  and  at  times  angry,  de- 
bates took  place  :  witnesses,  testimony,  the  de- 
cisions of  previous  Councils,  the  expressions  of 
apologists  and  apostolic  writers,  the  words  of 
the  Holy  Gospels,  and  the  canonical  Epistles 
were  examined,  expounded,  and  elaborated. 
The  history  of  the  development  of  the  Church, 
of  the  establishment  of  the  Dioceses,  of  the 
usages  of  Patriarchs  and  Bishops  were  pre- 
sented, as  occasion  required,  and  the  great 
questions  at  issue  were  attacked  or  defended, 
as  the  Council  continued.  At  last  the  efforts  of 
the  Emperor  and  of  the  orthodox  party  failed 
to  satisfy  or  change  the  opinions  and  avowals 
of  the  Macedonian  faction,  and  they  withdrew 
in  anger  from  further  sessions  of  the  assembly, 
and  thus  cut  off  all  hopes  of  reunion  or  settle- 
ment. It  is  not  necessary  that  we  should 
dwell  in  detail  upon  the  manner  or  manage- 
ment of  these  length)',  and  at  times  unhappy, 
discussions.  They  continued  through  days 
and  weeks    into   the   heated  summer,  in  that 


136      FIRST  COUNCIL    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

semi-tropical  city,  and  ceased  at  last  with  con- 
clusions that  were  not  only  satisfactor}^  to  the 
oriental  orthodox  Church,  but  also  accepted 
by  the  Churches  of  the  West,  and  attested  to 
by  subsequent  General  Councils  of  the  Catholic 
Body.  At  first  the  Egyptian  Church  declined 
to  bend  to  the  authority  of  this  Council,  but  by 
the  year  a.d.  451  it  was  received  throughout 
Christendom,  and  its  voice  was  regarded  as  in- 
spired. It  gathered  up  in  completed  form  the 
results  of  its  deliberations,  and  they  were  pub- 
lished in  the  shape  of  seven  canons,  a  synodal 
letter  to  the  Emperor,  and  a  reaffirmation  of 
the  Creed  of  Nicsea,  with  certain  additions  that 
were  already  in  vogue  among  the  faithful. 
And  these  rulings  cut  sharply  through  the  un- 
healthy growths  that  had  developed  so  much 
disorder  in  the  Church. 

The  Council  declared  that  Bishops  had  no 
jurisdiction  beyond  their  own  boundaries,  and 
must  not  meddle  with  the  government  of  other 
sees  ;  that  the  Eastern  Bishops  must  attend  to 
the  duties  of  their  Eastern  Dioceses,  and  could 
only  assemble  with  authority  when  summoned 
to  Council.  This  rule  has  continued  ever 
since,  and  affects  the  relations  of  each  Dio- 
cese, and  of  national  Churches  throughout  the 
world. 

The  system  of  Patriarchates  was  also  fully 


FIRST  COUNCIL    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE.      137 

elaborated,  though  in  this,  as  in  other  mat- 
ters, the  Fathers  claimed  that  they  did  no 
new  thing,  but  simply  reaffirmed  the  Nicene, 
and  ancient  rules,  and  customs. 

The  third  canon  gave  the  place  of  power, 
next  after  imperial  Rome,  to  the  Bishop  of 
Constantinople,  because  it  was  "  new  Rome," 
and  because  the  Emperor's  dwelling-place  was 
within  its  limits.  The  sixth  canon  forbade  ac- 
cusations by  heretics  and  improper  persons, 
against  Bishops ;  and  appeal,  whenever  cause 
was  proper,  must  be  made  to  a  Provincial 
Council.  No  mention  is  made  of  submitting 
cases  of  this  character  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
and  any  such  method  as  had  been  allowed  in 
former  troublous  times  by  the  Council  of  Sar- 
dica,  were  abrogated,  and  the  ancient  custom  of 
vesting  superior  and  ultimate  power  in  a  Coun- 
cil was  restored  to  active  law.  The  treatment 
of  the  deep  doctrinal  matter  submitted  to  this 
learned  gathering  occupied,  of  course,  much  of 
its  time.  They  could  not  improve  upon  the 
utterances  of  the  Nicene  Council :  how  could 
they  hesitate  to  strongly  reannounce  and  vig- 
orously defend  what  that  remarkable  Synod 
had  put  forth.  And  so  they  adopted  Niceas 
Creed  as  their  oivn,  thus  condemning  Arianism, 
whether  in  its  balder  form,  or  in  its  semi-arian 
conditions  as  taught  by  Apollinarius. 


138     FIRST  COUNCIL    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

When  the  Macedonian  heresy  was  exam- 
ined, the  Fathers  considered  a  statement  and 
definition  carefully  made  some  years  before  by 
the  holy  Epiphanius,  who  had  written  what 
follows  in  the  present  Nicene  Creed  after  the 
words  "  We  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,"  viz., 
these  words,  "  the  Lord  and  the  Giver  of  Life  ; 
who  proceedeth  from  the  Father ;  who  with 
the  Father  and  the  Son  is  together  worshipped 
and  glorified  ;  who  spake  by  the  Prophets : 
(and)  in  One,  Holy,  Catholic,  and  Apostolic 
Church.  We  acknowledge  one  Baptism  for 
the  remission  of  sins  ;  we  look  for  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead,  and  the  life  of  the  world 
to  come.  Amen."  Thus,  forever  acknowledg- 
ing the  Consubstantiality,  the  Divinity,  and  the 
operating  Personality  of  the  third  Person  of 
the  Adorable  Trinity.  And  these  strong  lu- 
minous statements  were  later  endorsed,  and 
strengthened,  and  adopted  by  the  General 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  which  gave  to  the  Chris- 
tian world,  what  the  Nicene  and  Constantino- 
politan  Fathers,  and  Epiphanius,  had  so  prec- 
iously prepared. 

You  will  notice  that  this  Creed  announces 
belief  in  the  fact  that  the  "  Holy  Ghost  pro- 
ceedeth from  the  Father,"  and  no  mention  is 
made  "  of  the  Son."  This  last  expression,  which 
has  crept  into  the  Nicene  Creed  as  it  appears 


FIJ?ST  COUNCIL    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE.      139 

in  our  offices,  is  the  famous"  Filioque."  It  was 
first  added  to  the  Symbol,  at  a  Spanish  Provin- 
cial Council  held  at  Toledo,  a.d.  589.  It  has 
been  the  source  of  much  dissension  and  differ- 
ence, and  was  a  principal  cause  for  the  sad  sepa- 
ration of  the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches. 
To-day  it  affects  the  relations  of  the  Anglican 
Communion  with  the  great  Orthodox  Eastern 
Church  of  Russia,  Greece,  and  the  Orient,  and 
would  seem  by  some  to  mar  the  perfectness  of 
our  otherwise  beautiful  Confession  of  Faith. 
The  Council  of  Constantinople  did  not  issue  a 
new  Creed,  as  we  have  noted.  They  could  not 
better  express  their  position,  than  to  enunciate 
the  noble  words  of  Nice.  They  had  no  new 
truth  to  present,  and  they  could  not  more  fully 
illumine  and  define  the  Catholic  inheritance. 
They  did  not  publish  their  utterance  as  novel, 
or  peculiar,  but  gathering  up  the  final  sentences 
of  their  belief  in  God  the  Holy  Ghost — they 
sent  them  ringing  down  the  centuries,  while 
succeeding  General  Councils  republished  them 
for  all  time. 

In  the  beautiful  Epistle  sent  to  the  Emperor 
at  the  conclusion  of  their  labors,  the  Bishops 
described  their  decisions,  and  closed  with  these 
words  :  "  We  beseech  you  therefore  to  authorize 
the  decree  of  the  Council ;  that  as  you  have 
honored  the  Church  by  the  letters  by  which  it 


140     FIRST  COUNCIL    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

was  called,  you  may  likewise  fix  a  conclusion 
and  seal  to  our  determinations."  The  docu- 
ments bear  the  date  of  the  7th  of  the  Ides  of 
July,  i.e.,  the  ninth  day  of  the  month,  a.d.  381. 
Theodosius,  the  Emperor,  with  a  light  heart  and 
joyous  alacrity,  prepared  on  the  30th  day  of  the 
same  month  his  letters  of  law  to  the  Empire. 
By  these  directions  all  Churches  were  to  be 
put  into  the  hands  of  Bishops  who  confessed 
the  Holy  Trinity,  while  such  Bishops  as  re- 
fused to  accept  the  Conciliar  Creed  and  de- 
crees, were  expelled  from  their  places.  He  add- 
ed other  laws  against  heretics  of  various  sort, 
severe  and  harsh  in  their  character,  and  with 
bitter  penalties  attached.  And  this  Avas  the 
death-blow  to  Arianism  and  its  developments, 
save  as  it  has  existed  since,  and  now,  in  dilut- 
ed form,  or  in  harmless  measure.  And  so  this 
important  oecumenical  Council  came  to  its 
close,  and  the  venerable  ecclesiastics  who  com- 
posed its  body  returned  to  their  distant  homes. 
Through  them  had  the  Divine  Spirit  spoken, 
and  by  them  had  the  Faith  of  the  Apostles  been 
substantiated,  and  protected  ;  and  though  the 
Churches  did  not  have  at  once  that  rest  and 
peace  which  are  conducive  to  quietness  and 
growth,  yet  with  greater  firmness,  and  by 
more  confident  endeavor,  did  the  disciples  of 
the  ancient  truth  maintain,  their  cause  in  the 


FIRST  COUNCIL    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE.      14 1 

face  of  foes,  and  extend  the  Kingdom  of  our 
Lord,  relying  on  His  promises,  and  assured  of 
ultimate  victory. 

And  are  we  not  to-day  dwelling  under  the  gra- 
cious Benediction  of  that  Council  of  the  shad- 
owy past  ?  Are  we  not  taught  by  its  learned  and 
notable  Doctors  in  the  true  Faith  of  Christen- 
dom ?  Do  we  not,  when  now  the  enemy  ariseth 
to  assail  the  citadel  of  God,  cover  ourselves  be- 
hind the  ramparts  and  walls  they  erected,  real- 
izing the  comfort  and  the  confidence  that  come 
from  an  assurance  that  they  were  workmen 
raised  up  of  the  Lord,  to  settle  the  foundation 
and  fling  aloft  the  battlements  of  truth  ?  For 
concerning  the  Being  of  God  Himself,  are  the 
indestructible  verities  He  hath  uttered,  through 
the  mouths  of  His  servants.  As  we  in  our 
Churches  repeat  the  glorious  and  venerable 
words  of  the  Nicene  Constantinopolitan  Creed, 
may  we  not  with  loving  gratitude,  thank  the 
Great  Head  of  the  Kingdom  for  having  grant- 
ed to  us  so  precious  an  inheritance,  and  so  in- 
defectible a  belief  ?  For  we  do  but  echo  the 
voices  of  those  Fathers  of  old,  as  we  lift  the 
bared  brow,  and  send  forth  the  strong,  unfalter- 
ing avowal.  We  believe  in  One  God  the  Father 
Almighty,  and  in  one  only-begotten  consub- 
stantial  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,   the    Life   giver,    proceeding   from    the 


142     FIRST  COUNCIL    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

Father,  coeternal,  who  with  Father  and  Son  to- 
gether is  worshipped  and  glorified,  both  now 
and  forevermore.  Three  Persons,  one  only 
God! 

Authorities  Consulted. 

Ecclesiastical  History  of  Socrates. 

Robertson's  History  of  the  Christian  Church. 

Milman's  History  of  Christianity,  specially  Vol.  iii. 

Fleury's  Ecclesiastical  History. 

Lumby's  History  of  the  Creeds. 

Farrar's  Lives  of  the  Fathers. 

Cutts's  Turning  Points  of  Church  History. 

Williams's  Ecclesiastical  History. 

Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History. 

Gratkin's  Arian  Controversy. 

Stanley's  History  of  the  Eastern  Church. 

Fulton's  Index  Canonum. 

Browne's  Exposition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles. 

Forbes's  Explanation  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles. 

Hooker's  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  Bk.  v. 

Pearson  On  the  Creed. 


ZDc  Council  of  lepbesus:  B.D.  43  U 


LECTURE  IV. 

THE   REV.    MORGAN   DIX,    S.T.D.,    D.C.L., 

Rector  of  Trinity  Parish,  New  York. 

THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS :    A.D.   4.JI. 

Those  four  great  Councils,  by  which,  in  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  the  Catholic  Faith  was 
defined  in  view  of  errors  then  and  previously 
troubling  the  Christian  flock,  retain  to  this  day 
their  hold  on  human  thought,  and  must  retain 
it  till  the  end  of  the  world.  But  although,  col- 
lectively and  one  by  one,  they  are  of  paramount 
authority  in  controversies  concerning  the  Faith, 
it  may  be  suggested  that  their  declarations  ap- 
pear to  us  to  vary  in  importance  with  varia- 
tions in  current  thought,  so  that  the  message 
of  one  Council  may  seem  more  timely  at  one 
age  than  at  another.  If  this  be  so,  we  may  go 
on  and  say,  that  a  special  interest  seems  to 
invest  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  at 
this  particular  era ;  that  they  bear  more  directly 
than  those  of  other  Councils  on  current  re- 
ligious topics  ;  and  that  they  are  distinctly  help- 
10 


146      THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS :   A.D.  4.JI. 

fill  to  US  on  account  of  the  peculiar  line  on 
which  rejecters  of  Gospel  truth  pursue  their 
tortuous  course  to-day.  This,  at  least,  seems 
to  be  the  case,  as  we  consider  the  inclination 
to  concentrate  thought  on  the  study  of  Christ 
on  the  human  side  ;  the  disinclination  to  con- 
sider anything  in  Him  except  His  character 
and  doings  as  a  man  like  us;  the  dangerous 
assertions  too  often  heard  concerning  His 
Person ;  and  the  revival  of  discussion  about 
limitations  of  knowledge  in  Him  in  connection 
with  recent  alleged  corrections  of  the  Canon 
of  Holy  Scripture  as  it  was  accepted  in  His 
day.  At  a  time  when  the  minds  of  thoughtful 
men  are  deeply  engaged  in  these  recondite  sub- 
jects, and  when  the  temptation  is  strong  to 
escape  from  the  cruxoi  some  theological  puzzle 
by  the  invention  of  an  original  theory,  or  the 
revival  of  some  one  of  the  many  held  long  ago, 
we  feel  great  need  of  guidance  ;  and  such  may 
be  found  at  Ephesus.  The  dogmatic  decrees 
of  that  Council  fit  into  the  questions  of  this  day 
with  the  precision  of  a  master-key  ;  they  show 
intelligent  minds  what  is  the  present  trouble, 
and  what  its  solution.  This  seems  to  be  the 
Council  which  now,  and  at  this  particular  time, 
will  best  repay  study ;  and  so  it  shall  be  my 
endeavor  to  bring  out,  as  clearly  as  I  can,  the 
precise    point  then  under  discussion  ;  to  state 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS :   A.D.  4.JI.       147 

what  the  fathers  of  the  Council  decided  ;  and 
then  to  indicate  the  bearing  of  their  action  on 
some  of  those  hard  questions  which  perplex 
many  an  earnest  believer  in  our  own  day. 

To  begin  with,  let  this  be  said  :  That  the 
study  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus  brings  before 
the  mind,  with  the  distinctness  of  an  indelible 
impression,  two  names,  or  rather  a  name  and 
a  title ;  the  name  of  a  man,  and  the  title  of  a 
woman.  The  man  is  Nestorius,  Metropolitan 
of  Constantinople  ;  the  title  is  Theotokos,  and 
it  belongs  to  the  Mother  of  our  Lord.  To  un- 
derstand Ephesus,  two  things  are  required :  to 
know  what  Nestorius  and  his  school  held  and 
taught ;  and  to  know  what  Theotokos  means. 
For  it  is  matter  of  record  that,  even  as  at 
Nicaea  the  controversy  turned  on  one  word, 
"  Homoousios,"  so  at  Ephesus  it  turned  on  the 
word  "  Theotokos  ;  "  and  that  if  Nestorius  could 
have  been  brought  to  concede  that  title  to  the 
Holy  Virgin  Mary,  the  Council  need  not  and 
would  not  have  been  held.  So  let  us  proceed 
with  what  is  to  be  said  about  the  title  and  the 
man. 

And,  first,  of  the  man :  Contemporaneous  de- 
scriptions bring  him  before  us  with  pictorial 
effect.  Trained  in  a  monastery,  he  preserved 
the  traditional  type  of  the  monk  when  pro- 
moted   to   the  chief   bishopric  in  the  imperial 


148      THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :   A.D.  4JI. 

city.  He  had,  we  are  told,  the  perilous  gift  of 
great  fluency  in  extempore  preaching,  as  well 
as  a  very  beautiful  and  powerful  voice.  He 
appears  to  have  been  but  imperfectly  trained 
in  theology,  and  was  evidently  indisposed  to 
follow  the  great  authorities  who  had  preceded 
him.  He  may  not  have  set  up  for  that  most 
dangerous  of  guides  in  religion,  an  original 
thinker,  but  his  mind  was  in  great  confusion 
on  theological  questions.  He  was  naturally  a 
favourite  at  court,  for  men  of  his  class  are  al- 
ways attractive  to  the  rich  and  great,  who 
like  easy-going  and  indulgent  pastors;  popu- 
lar eloquence  and  love  of  applause  gain  favor, 
where  those  things  are  naturally  in  request. 
We  can  see  him  as  he  goes  about,  "  clad  in 
mourning  garments,  walking  heavily,  seeking 
by  the  pallor  of  his  looks  to  appear  ascetic  "  — 
the  portraiture  is  from  the  life  —  "at  home 
mostly  given  to  books,  and  living  quietly  by 
himself,  seeking  to  seem  to  be  a  Christian 
rather  than  to  be  one,  and  preferring  his  own 
glory  to  the  glory  of  Christ."  Such  was  the 
man  who  became  involved  in  a  controversy, 
which  he  lacked  the  theological  knowledge  and 
the  mental  acumen  to  manage  with  success, 
while  his  vanity  and  self-reliance  compelled 
him  to  adhere  to  his  erroneous  position ;  for  in 
what  he  believed  and  what  he  denied,  he  seems 


THE    COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :   A.D.  4.JI.      149 

to  have  been  ever  relying  on  opinions  of  his 
own,  careless  whether  they  were  in  accord  with 
Catholic  tradition  or  not. 

To  understand  the  nature  of  the  net  in  which 
Nestorius  \vas  caught,  let  us  go  back  a   few 
minutes.    At  Nicasa,  a.d.  325,  it  had  been  settled 
against  Arius,  that  He  by  whom  the  world  was 
redeemed,  was  God  the  Word,  Eternal  Son  of 
the  Eternal  Father,  and  of  one  substance  with 
Him,  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  Very  God 
of  Very  God,  in  opposition  to  the  heretical  no- 
tion, that   whatever    He   might  be  called.  He 
was,  after  all,  a  created  being,  and  that  there 
was,  ever  so  long  ago,  a  time  when   He  did 
not  exist.     At  Constantinople,  a.d.  381,  it  was 
further  declared  to  be  of  faith,  that  Christ,  Per- 
fect God,  is  also  Perfect  Man,  having  a  human 
soul  and  mind,  as  well  as  a  human  body ;  in 
opposition  to  the  ApoUinarian  notion  of  a  mind- 
less body,  in  which   Deity  took   the  place  of 
a  soul.    All  this  was  clear.    Christ  is  Perfect 
God,   and   Christ   is    Perfect    Man.      But   the 
moment  we  begin  to  consider  the  manner  and 
results  of  the  union  of  the  two  natures,  that 
moment  we  encounter  a  difficulty ;  we  hardly 
know  what  to  think,  what  to  say.      How  could 
Christ  be  God  and  Man  at  once,  without  being 
two  different  persons  ?      Must  there  not  be  a 
Divine  Christ  and  a  Human  Christ?     And  par- 


ISO      THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS :   A.D.  4.JI. 

ticularly  staggering  to  minds  prone  to  speculate 
in  religion  is  the  question,  How  God  the  Word 
could  have  been  born  of  a  mortal  woman  ?  That 
was  the  question  which  hopelessly  wrecked 
Nestorius.  He  accepted  the  decree  of  Niccea, 
and  acknowledged  Christ  to  be  God  ;  he  ac- 
cepted likewise  the  decree  of  Constantinople, 
and  acknowledged  Him  to  be  true  Man ;  but 
he  could  not  understand  the  nature  of  the  union, 
and  so  he  made  up  an  explanation  which 
amounted  to  this,  that  there  must  have  been 
two  Christs ;  that  is  to  say,  that  Mary's  Son 
was  a  man,  a  human  person,  but  not  the  Divine 
Person  called  in  Holy  Scripture  the  Word,  and 
the  Son  of  God.  That  this  was  his  view  is 
clear,  from  the  fact  that  he  persistently  refused 
to  apply  to  her  the  title  "  Theotokos."  That 
means  the  Bringer  Forth  of  God,  or,  to  put  it 
into  plain  English,  the  Mother  of  God ;  and 
Nestorius,  in  refusing  to  call  the  Blessed 
Virgin  the  Mother  of  God,  disclosed  the  fact 
that  he  did  not  believe  that  a  Divine  Person 
was  born  of  her.  He  would  not  admit  it,  be- 
cause he  could  not  see  how  it  could  be.  He 
could  think  of  her  as  the  Mother  of  a  Christ,  but 
not  as  the  Mother  of  the  Word  Eternal ;  the 
Mother  of  a  man,  but  not  of  God;  and  there- 
fore he  supposed  that  in  Christ  there  must  have 
been  two  distinct  persons ;  a  man,  a  human  per- 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :   A.D.  4.3 1.      151 

son,  an  individual  like  unto  one  of  us,  whom 
she  brought  forth,  and  a  Divine  Personality 
which  allied  that  man,  the  Son  of  Mary,  to 
Himself,  and  made  that  Son  of  Mary  a  God- 
clad  individual,  filled  through  that  alliance 
with  grace  and  truth.  He  could  not  compre- 
hend the  union  of  the  two  natures  ;  and  being 
one  of  those  whose  vanity  forbids  them  to  ac- 
cept as  truth  anything  which  they  do  not  un- 
derstand, and  yet  unwilling  to  break  with  the 
Church,  he  invented  a  theory  to  help  him  out 
of  his  dilemma. 

There  is  not  time,  nor  is  it  necessary,  to  go 
into  a  review  of  the  history  of  the  Council. 
From  the  writers  of  the  period  you  may  learn 
how  the  trouble  began;  how  Nestorius,  in 
whose  presence  a  sermon  containing  strictures 
on  the  word  Theotokos  was  preached,  sup- 
ported the  preacher  and  announced  that  he 
concurred  in  his  opinion ;  how  Cyril,  the 
Bishop  of  Alexandria,  appeared  as  champion  of 
the  faith  against  the  rising  error :  how  Theo- 
dosius,  the  Emperor,  the  friend  of  Nestorius, 
called  a  General  Council,  no  doubt  with  the 
hope  that  the  Metropolitan  would  be  sustained  ; 
how  delays  occurred,  through  waiting  for  the 
arrival  of  John,  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  with  his 
delegation  of  Syrian  Bishops  ;  how  the  assem- 
bled fathers  at  length  proceeded  without  longer 


'152      THE    COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS :   A.D.  4.JI. 

waiting,  and  having  examined  the  question  at 
issue,  defined  the  faith  and  deposed  Nestorius  : 
how  the    Syrians,  arriving   after   the    Council 
had  adjourned,  refused  to  accept  its  decrees; 
how    S.    Cyril   suffered    for   the   part   he   had 
taken  in  fighting  the  falsehood  ;  how  factious 
opposition    failed    of    its    purpose ;    how    the 
Churches   throughout  the  world  came  in  and 
gave  adhesion,    while  the    unhappy  Nestorius 
sank  out  of  view  and  died  in  exile  ;  and  how, 
twenty  years  later,  the  great  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon  realifirmed  the  Acts  of  Ephesus,  so  that 
they  stand,  ever  since  and  now,  as  an  infallibly 
true  statement  on  the  points  to  which  they  re- 
late.    These  things  would  be  as  interesting  in 
the  recital  as  they  are  in  the  reading ;  but  the 
time  at  our  disposal  this  evening  must  be  spent, 
not  in  reading  a   thrilling  story,  but  in  study- 
ing  the   point   discussed  and    decided   by  the 
Council,  that  we  may  the  better  understand  its 
bearing  on  the  thoughts  of  our  own  time.    And 
so  let  us  come  back,  for  a  while,  to  Nestorius. 
The  impression  has  been  sedulously  fostered 
and  is  wide-spread,  that  he  was  severely  dealt 
with  ;  but  do  not  people  like  him  bring  their 
misfortunes   on    themselves?      Why    should    a 
man  not  well-grounded  in  dogmatic  theology 
undertake  to  lay  down  the  law  on  any  point 
within   its   range?      Nestorius   had     his   good 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :   A.D.4.JI.       1 53 

side,  no  doubt ;  but  he  was  a  weak  man,  who, 
as  is  the  case  with  heretics,  did  not  know  pre- 
cisely what  he  believed,  and  was  strongest  in 
his  protests  and  denials.  The  gamut  of  error 
is  long,  and  the  performers,  as  they  run  over 
it,  bring  forth  many  a  confused  and  uncertain 
sound  and  many  a  discord.  Nestorius  com- 
plained that  his  adversaries  ascribed  to  him 
doctrines  which  he  did  not  hold ;  he  even 
stated  certain  propositions,  as  embodying  his 
belief,  which  propositions  had  a  kind  of  ortho- 
dox sound,  and  might  have  passed  as  sufficient 
for  his  acquittal,  had  he  not  betrayed  himself 
elsewhere  ;  for  as  soon  as  he  got  off  the  line 
which  he  had  reluctantly  drawn,  he  would  say 
wild  things,  quite  at  variance  with  his  previous 
statements  and  evidently  heretical ;  just  like 
men  in  our  own  day,  who  having  earnestly  as- 
sured us  that  they  believe  the  Nicene  Creed, 
proceed  to  put  meanings  of  their  own  into  it, 
which  completely  change  its  sense. 

There  is  really  no  difficulty  in  finding  out 
what  he  held ;  it  is  impossible  that  for  sixteen 
hundred  years  the  Church  has  been  misin- 
formed on  that  subject;  it  is  too  plain  what 
his  error  was;  unfortunately  it  is  the  error  of 
large  numbers  to-day,  who  might  be  correctly 
described  as  the  Nestorians  of  our  own  period. 
Undoubtedly  his  idea  was   this  :  That  in  our 


154      THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :   A. D.  4.3 1. 

Lord  there  were  two  distinct  persons ;  that 
there  was  a  human  Christ,  and  that  there  was 
a  Divine  Christ ;  that  what  might  be  said  of 
the  one  must  not  be  said  of  the  other ;  in 
short,  that  it  was  not  God  who  was  made  man, 
but  man  who  was  made  God.  According  to 
his  account  an  individual  was  born  of  Mary, 
Jesus  Christ  by  name,  who  subsequently  be- 
came united  to  God  in  a  singularly  close  iden- 
tification, so  that,  though  God  the  Word  was 
one  with  the  child  whom  Mary  bore,  He  was 
so  as  a  great  and  wonderful  person  may  be  said 
to  be  one  with  a  humbler  friend,  by  moral  union, 
affection,  and  perfect  harmony  of  thought  and 
act.  It  is  distinctly  Nestorian  to  allege,  that 
the  union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  did  not 
begin  with  the  creation  of  the  first  rudimental 
germ  of  humanity  ;  that  a  Christ  was  first  born 
into  the  world,  and  that  at  some  time  after  that 
birth,  the  Divine  Nature  was  added  to  the  hu- 
man, and  so  God  was  in  Christ ;  that  our  Lord 
was  a  human  Saviour  connected  strictly  with 
God,  a  man  clothed  on  with  deity  ;  that  the 
Eternal  Word  threw  His  glory  around  the 
humble  Jew,  as  a  man  throws  a  cloak  around 
his  shoulders  and  in  it  wraps  his  person.  Prop- 
ositions which  involve  the  conclusion,  however 
it  may  be  disguised  by  fine  words,  that  the  re- 
lation of  God  to  the  Son  of  Mary  was  the  same 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS :   A.D.  4.JI.       1 55 

in  kind,  although  not  of  course  in  degree,  as 
His  relation  to  any  devout  Christian.     Nestori- 
us,  in  considering  the  subject,  probably  fixed 
on  a  particular  time  at  which  the  union  was 
effected  ;  very  likely  that  of  the  baptism  of  our 
Lord  in  the  Jordan,  when  the  Holy  Ghost  de- 
scended on  Him.     One  thing  he  would  not  ad- 
mit, that  it  occurred    before    His   birth.      He 
would  not  admit  that  He  who  was   begotten 
from  eternity  of  the  Father  was  the  same  who 
was  born  of  Mary ;  and  therefore  he  stuck  at 
that  title  to  which  we  have  referred.     To  quote 
the  historian  Socrates :  "  He  dreaded  the  term 
as  they  do  hob-goblins,  and  this  out  of  great 
ignorance  ; "  and  he  said,  that  instead  of  Theo- 
tokos,  or  Mother  of  God,  she  should  be  called 
Christotokos,  or  Anthropotokos,  the  Mother  of 
Christ,  or  the  Mother  of  a  Man.     To  take  that 
position  is  to  assail  the  Faith  of  the  Gospel  at 
its  vital  point ;  for  with  the  denial  that  Mary's 
Son  was  God,  the  unity  of  the  Redeemer  with 
the  entire  human  race  is  denied,  and  the  Broth- 
erhood of  God  with  us  men,  and  the  Power  of 
the  Atonement,  and  the  Sacramental  System ; 
nay,  the  very  Incarnation  itself. 

Let  us,  then,  consider  this  term  Theotokos 
and  see  what  it  was  intended  to  express.  Nes- 
torius  must  have  known  perfectly  well  what  it 
meant,  for  it  had  been  in  familar  use  by  every 


156      THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :   A.D.4.JI. 

school  in  the  Church  for  nearly  two  hundred 
years.  Origen  and  Eusebius,  Socrates  the  his- 
torian, Alexander  the  predecessor  of  S.  Athan- 
asius,  and  S.  Athanasius  himself ;  the  Arian 
Eusebius,  S.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  and  Julian  the 
Apostate,  the  two  Gregories,  S.  Chrysostom, 
all  knew  the  word  and  what  it  meant ;  while 
the  corresponding  title,  Mater  Dei,  Mother  of 
God,  was  used  in  the  Latin  Church  by  S.  Am- 
brose, Cassian,  and  Vincent  of  Lerins.  It  was 
precisely  the  word  needed  to  express  a  particu- 
lar fact ;  and  if  we  had  not  had  it,  we  should 
now  be  compelled  to  invent  a  term  equally  fit 
to  carry  the  meaning. 

The  fact  may  best  be  brought  out  by  asking 
one  simple  question  ;  we  ask  it  with  a  reverence 
unspeakably  profound ;  but  it  is  a  question  which 
must  be  asked  and  answered.  Mary  the  Virgin: 
What,  or  whom,  did  she  bring  forth  that  night 
at  Bethlehem  ?     Who,  or  what  was  her  child  ? 

Will  you  sa}^,  she  brought  forth  no  person  at 
all,  but  human  nature  ?  Is  there  any  sense  in 
the  words  you  employ  ?  Any  meaning  in  your 
statement  ?  Practically,  we  know  of  human  nat- 
ure only  in  connection  with  personal  existence : 
none  but  persons  have  human  nature ;  and  who- 
ever has  human  nature  must  be  a  person  of 
some  kind ;  it  exists  along  with  a  personality 
of  some  sort,  and  not  as  an  abstraction.   "  A  per- 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :   A.D.4.JI.      1 5/ 

son,"  says  John  Henry  Newman,  "  is  an  intelli- 
gent, individual  agent."  *  The  presence  of  such 
an  intelligent  individual  agent  is  necessarily 
understood  in  case  of  a  birth ;  it  is  understood 
in  this  case.  Who  then  was  the  intelligent,  in- 
dividual, personal  being,  who  was  born  into  the 
world  of  men,  on  whom  the  Virgin  Mother 
fixed  her  eyes,  rejoicing  over  her  first-born 
son  ?  It  does  no  good  to  skulk  here,  and  take 
refuge  in  metaphysics,  and  try  to  throw  dust  in 
our  eyes  by  talking  about  ideas,  and  impersonal 
humanities  existing  in  an  imaginary  region  of 
unrealized  abstraction ;  for  no  note  is  given  of 
any  such  puzzling  anomaly  in  that  inn  where 
Mary  bore,  that  manger  wherein  she  laid,  her 
child.  Nor  yet  drop  down  to  some  base  and 
vulgar  physical  conception,  as  if  there  came 
forth  from  that  blessed  womb  mere  rudimental 
vestiges  of  a  being  that  should  afterward  exist, 
but  having  as  yet  no  personal  reality ;  that 
would  have  been  a  miscarriage,  and  not  a  birth. 
The  account  of  the  Birth  of  Christ  is  plain  his- 
tory. Just  as  the  mother  of  to-day,  her  pain 
and  sorrow  over,  presses  to  her  heart  a  living, 
dear,  and  perfect  child,  so  was  it  with  that 
Holy  Mother  ;  not  less  real  was  her  joy,  nor 
less  exact  the  personal  relationship  between  that 

*  See  Arians  of  the  Fourth  Century,  Chap.  iU,  Sec.  ii. 


158      THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS :  A.D.  4.JI. 

Mother  and  that  Child.  Not  an  abstraction  ;  not 
a  vehicle  of  flesh  and  bone  as  yet  without  a  real 
tenant ;  not  a  mindless  body  ;  but  she  brought 
forth  her  first-born  Son.  Who  was  that  first- 
born Son  ? 

There  are  but  two  answers  to  that  question. 
Admitting  that  the  birth  did  take  place  at  Beth- 
lehem, and  that  Some  One  was  born,  a  ques- 
tion arises  at  once  as  to  the  identity  of  the  indi- 
vidual then  born,  and  the  choice  is  between  the 
answer  in  the  Creed  and  an  answer  outside  of 
the  Creed.  Either  it  was  a  Divine  Person,  or  it 
was  a  human  person.  Either  it  was,  as  the 
Creed  affirms,  the  Only  Begotten  Son  of  God, 
Begotten  of  His  Father  before  all  worlds,  God 
of  God,  Light  of  Light,  Very  God  of  Very 
God,  the  Divine  and  Eternal  Logos,  Who  for 
us  men  and  for  our  salvation  came  down  from 
Heaven,  and  was  made  Very  Man  of  the  Sub- 
stance of  the  Virgin  Mary  His  Mother ;  or  else 
it  was  a  human  being,  one  individual  of  our 
race,  a  man  like  one  of  ourselves.  Now,  if  you 
take  the  latter  view  of  the  case,  then  mark  well, 
that  whatever  you  may  say  about  that  fortunate 
individual;  however  brilliantly  you  may  rhap- 
sodize about  the  marvellous  destiny  to  which 
he  was  born,  and  the  alliance  through  which 
he  was  lifted  up  to  Brotherhood  with  God ; 
whatever  titles  of  honor  you  may  lavish  on  him 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :   A.D.  4.JI.      1 59 

in  praise  of  that  glorification  of  him ;  there 
stands,  baldly,  coldly,  behind  all  your  fine 
speeches,  a  denial  of  the  Deity,  and  the  postul- 
ate that  it  was  not  God,  but  a  man  whom  Mary 
brought  into  the  world.  And  so,  the  question 
whether  Mary  is  Theotokos,  or,  as  the  Latins 
would  say.  Mater  Dei,  Dei  Genitrix,  or  as  the 
English  hath  it,  the  Mother  of  God,  is  simply  the 
question  Avhether  the  World's  Redeemer  and 
Our  Saviour  was  the  Divine  Person  whom  we 
believe  Him  to  be,  or  a  human  person,  advanced 
and  promoted,  some  time  after  his  birth,  either 
as  a  reward  to  his  virtue  and  merit,  or  in  pur- 
suance of  a  Divine  plan  and  purpose  to  that 
effect,  to  the  honours,  the  powers,  and  even  the 
name  of  God  Most  High.  I  say  that  this  is  the 
choice,  and  that  as  men  make  it  they  cannot 
help  it,  but  they  must  take  side  with  Catholic 
believers,  or  slide  into  the  ranks  of  the  heretics. 
Nestorianism  is  an  instance  of  the  effort  to 
retain  orthodox  language  while  escaping  the 
tremendous  strain  which  it  puts  on  faith.  The 
unfortunate  man  tried  to  steer  between  belief 
and  unbelief.  He  was  not  a  Socinian ;  nor  a 
humanitarian ;  he  did  not  deny  the  Nicene 
Creed,  but  he  could  not  accept  the  Mystery 
of  the  Holy  Incarnation  ;  and  so  he  explained. 
Christ  is  both  God  and  Man ;  but  not  both  at 
once,  nor  as  One  ;  there  must  have  been  two  dis- 


l60      THE    COUNCIL    OF  EPHESVS  :   A.D.  4.JI. 

tinct  personalities  in  Him.  First  there  was  one, 
and  then  there  were  two.  First  a  child  was 
born  of  Mary ;  and  that  Christ  was  a  man. 
Next  God  the  Son  came,  and  took  that  man  to 
Himself,  and  called  Himself  Christ,  by  that 
man's  name.  And  so  he  would  not  allow 
human  attributes  to  be  predicated  of  the  Di- 
vine Christ,  nor  Divine  attributes  of  the  Hu- 
man Christ.  He  would  say  of  Christ  that  He 
is  God  over  all  blessed  forevermore,  and  yet 
he  would  deny  in  the  same  breath  that  God 
was  born  of  Mary  or  that  God  died  for  us. 
To  talk  like  this,  whether  in  the  fourth  century 
or  the  nineteenth,  sounds  like  playing  fast  and 
loose  with  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Creed ;  but 
what  else  can  a  man  do  when  he  will  not  ac- 
cept the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church  ? 
And  so  they  go  :  Christ  is  this  but  not  that ; 
Christ  does  this  but  He  does  not  that ;  the 
Christ  who  is  man  was  born  of  Mary,  but  the 
other  Christ  who  is  God  was  not.  These  two 
Christs  are  the  two  Dromios  of  theology,  if  the 
confused  notions  of  the  school  deserve  that  name. 
Nor  is  there  any  telling  how  far  these  distinc- 
tions may  be  drawn.  They  may  involve  the 
idea  of  a  human  Christ  who  could  have  sinned, 
and  did  make  blunders,  and  was  not  trust- 
worthy, who  could  be  all  at  sea  on  points  of 
literature  and  criticism,  and  imbued  with  su- 


THE    COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS :   A.D.  4.JI.       161 

perstitions,  and  far  inferior  in  knowledge  and 
wisdom  to  many  a  college  professor  of  our 
time ;  and  yet  a  Christ  to  admire,  and  believe 
in,  on  the  score  of  relation  to  another  Christ, 
who  is  the  same,  yet  not  the  same.  There  was 
a  Christ  who  was  born  and  suifered  and  died. 
But  God  cannot  be  born,  or  suffer,  or  die  ;  so 
that  Christ  was  not  God.  Yet  still  we  oug-ht 
to  believe  in  Him,  and  love,  and  call  ourselves 
by  His  name,  and  call  ourselves  Christians. 
Was  that  the  preaching  which  converted  the 
pagan  Empire  to  Christ?  Was  that  the  Christ 
whose  name  conjured  the  old  spectres  and 
drove  them  to  the  abyss  ?  Is  that  the  Christ 
whom  we  adore  to-day  ? 

I  do  not  affirm  of  the  unfortunate  Nestorius 
that  he  held  all  these  contradictory  notions; 
but  I  cite  them  as  specimens  of  the  result  of 
denying  the  Hypostatic  Union,  and  refusing  to 
assent  to  the  teaching  of  the  Council,  that 
Christ  is  One  Divine  Person,  in  whom  two 
natures  are  perfectly  united,  without  com- 
mingling or  confusion.  To  allege  that  there 
are  two  Persons,  is  to  make  it  out  that  there 
are  two  Christs,  united  as  loving  friends  are 
bound  to  one  another,  in  heart,  soul,  and  will. 
Such  a  union  presents  not  the  sHghtest  difficulty 
to  thought;  it  is  intelligible  and  of  frequent 
occurrence;  thus  was  it  with  Abraham,  who 
II 


l62      THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :  A.D.  ^JI. 

was  called  the  Friend  of  God ;  thus  with 
Moses,  whose  face  once  shone  with  the  light 
cast  on  it  from  the  Divine  glory  ;  thus  has  it 
been  with  the  saints  in  all  ages,  and  thus  is  it 
now  with  many  of  His  children  who  are  grow- 
ing into  the  fulness  of  the  stature  of  the  Lord. 
But  the  Hypostatic  union  was  singular,  and 
unique;  never  effected  but  once,  and  then  ef- 
fected never  to  be  broken  ;  the  union  not  of  two 
Christs,  but  of  two  natures,  wherein  cometh  to 
us  One  Christ,  perfect  God  and  perfect  Man,  in 
the  Unity  of  the  Person  of  the  Eternal  Word  ; 
a  union  described  sufficiently  for  practical  pur- 
poses in  the  formula  :  "  The  Word  zvas  God :  the 
Word  was  made  flesh,  and  divelt  among  us,  and  we 
beheld  His  Glory,  the  Glory  of  the  Only  Begotten 
of  the  Fat  Jier  full  of  grace  and  truth." 

And  now  I  think  we  are  ready  to  pass  from 
the  old  time  to  the  new.  The  work  of  the  holy 
Fathers  at  Ephesus  was  done  well.  The  place 
selected  was  convenient  of  access  by  sea ;  it 
was  also  the  city  in  which  S.  Mary  died  ;  and 
the  Council  was  opened,  June  22d,  in  a  Church 
which  had  been  dedicated  in  her  name,  the 
Church  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary.  Canons 
were  passed  twelve  in  number,  and  among  them 
were  the  following :  '^' 

*  I  follow  the  translation  in  the  Digest  of  Theology,  by  Henry  R. 
Percival,  M.A.,  pp.  191-193.    Philadelphia  :  John  J.  McVey,  1S93. 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :  A.D.  4.31.      163 

Canon  I.  If  anyone  will  not  confess  that  the 
Emanuel  is  Very  God,  and  that  therefore  the 
Holy  Virgin  is  the  Mother  of  God,  inasmuch 
as  in  the  liesh  she  bore  the  Word  of  God  made 
Flesh  (as  it  is  written,  the  Word  was  made 
Flesh) :  let  him  be  anathema. 

Can.  IV.  If  anyone  shall  divide  between  two 
persons  or  subsistences  those  expressions  which 
are  contained  in  the  Evangelical  and  Apostoli- 
cal writings,  or  which  have  been  said  concern- 
ing Christ  by  the  Saints,  or  by  Himself,  and 
shall  apply  some  to  Him  as  to  a  man  separate 
from  the  Word  of  God,  and  shall  apply  others 
to  the  Only  Word  of  God  the  Father,  on  the 
ground  that  they  are  fit  to  be  applied  to  God  : 
let  him  be  anathema. 

Can.  V.  If  anyone  shall  dare  to  say  that  the 
Christ  is  a  Theophorus  (that  is  God-bearing) 
man  and  not  rather  that  He  is  Very  God,  as  an 
only  Son  through  nature,  because  the  Word 
was  made  Flesh  and  hath  a  share  in  flesh  and 
blood  as  we  do :  let  him  be  anathema. 

Can.  VII.  If  anyone  shall  say  that  Jesus  as 
man  is  only  energized  by  the  Word  of  God,  and 
that  the  glory  of  the  Only  Begotten  is  attrib- 
uted to  Him  as  something  not  properly  His: 
let  him  be  anathema. 

Can.  XII.  Whosoever  shall  not  recognize 
that  the  Word  of  God  suffered  in  the  flesh,  that 


1 64      THE    COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS :   A.D.  4.JI. 

He  was  crucified  in  the  flesh,  and  that  likewise 
in  that  same  flesh  He  tasted  death,  and  that 
He  is  become  the  first  begotten  of  the  dead, 
for,  as  He  is  God,  He  is  the  life  and  it  is  He 
that  giveth  life :  let  him  be  anathema. 

These,  and  the  other  dogmatic  statements  of 
the  Council,  concern  us  directly  to-day.  As 
part  of  the  Catholic  Code,  they  are  received  in 
the  Anglican  Communion  and  therefore  in  our 
own  branch  of  the  Church,  In  Statute  I,  Eliza- 
beth, XXXVI.,  A.D.  1558,  heresy  is  defined  to 
be  whatever  is  contrarv  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
First  General  Councils.  In  the  Lambeth  Coun- 
cil of  1867,  and  again  in  1888,  the  Archbishops, 
Bishops  Metropolitan,  and  other  Bishops  of  the 
Holy  Catholic  Church  in  communion  with  the 
Church  of  England  declared  that  they  hold 
the  One  Faith,  revealed  in  Holy  Writ,  defined 
in  the  Creeds,  maintained  by  the  Primitive 
Church,  and  affirmed  by  the  Undisputed  Ecu- 
menical Councils.  The  Lower  House  of  the 
General  Convention  of  1877  requested  the 
House  of  Bishops  to  provide  for  the  setting 
forth  of  an  accurate  version  in  the  English  lan- 
guage of  the  creeds  and  other  acts  of  the  said 
undisputed  General  Councils  concerning  the 
faith,  thus  {i.e.,  by  the  Lambeth  Conference  of 
1867)  proclaimed  as  the  standards  of  Orthodox 
Belief  for  the  whole  Church.     These  Acts  and 


THE    COUXCIL    OF  EPHESUS :   A.D.  4.JI.       l6$ 

Canons  cannot  be  considered  among  us  as  ob- 
solete verbiage  ;  rather  may  it  be  said  of  them, 
with  reverence,  that  to  us  "  they  are  spirit  and 
they  are  truth  ;  "  nor  would  it  be  easy  to  exag- 
gerate their  value  as  tests  of  the  extent  of  the 
departure  of  modern  thought  from  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Gospel. 

In  reading  what  passes  current  as  Christian 
literature ;  in  listening  to  discourses  preached 
outside  the  Church,  and  sometimes,  alas !  in 
our  own  pulpits ;  in  quiet  conference  with 
friends  on  religious  themes,  one  is  startled  and 
shocked  to  find  to  what  an  extent  Nestorian 
error  has  resumed  its  blighting  work.  There 
is  something  plaintive  and  pathetic  in  the  strug- 
gle of  some  good  men  to  retain  their  inherited 
belief  in  Christ  as  God,  though  convinced  that 
there  was  a  side  in  Him  on  which  after  all  He 
was  but  an  erring  and  fallible  man.  Take,  for 
instances,  the  alleged  discoveries  of  modern 
critics,  and  their  bold  assumptions  that  portions 
of  the  book  of  Genesis,  much  of  the  book  of 
Exodus,  the  whole  of  Leviticus  and  the  two 
books  of  Chronicles  were  written  after  the  cap- 
tivity, that  the  story  of  Moses  and  Mount 
Sinai,  the  old  covenant,  the  tabernacle,  and  the 
Aaronic  priesthood  is  but  a  tissue  of  Rabbinical 
invention;  that  Psalm  CX.  was  not  written  by 
David,  and  has  no  reference  to   Christ;  with 


l66      THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :  A.D.  4.JI. 

much  more  to  the  same  effect.  A  process  of 
criticism  like  this  may  end  in  sweeping  away 
all  reverence  for  the  Bible,  and  making  an  end 
of  our  faith  in  it  as  a  revelation  from  God.  But 
what,  then,  is  to  be  thought  of  Christ?  He 
quoted  Moses,  and  the  Psalms,  and  particu- 
larly Psalm  ex. ;  so  that,  if  the  Bible  be  really 
the  bundle  of  forgeries  that  it  is  represented  to 
be,  Christ  must  either  have  known  the  fact,  or 
been  deceived,  as  the  whole  world  has  been  for 
eighteen  hundred  years.  If  the  critics  are  right, 
what  is  to  be  done  ?  The  conclusion  is  inevitable : 
that  he  was  an  ignorant  person,  who  never  out- 
grew His  errors,  an  untrustworthy  and  fallible 
Christ,  whose  virtues,  however,  and  whose  per- 
sonal merit,  orive  Him  the  hold  on  us  to  which 
His  wisdom  and  knowledge  do  not  entitle  Him  ; 
and  yet,  if  that  is  to  be  our  conception  of  the 
Lord,  where  can  the  idea  of  His  Divinity  come 
in?  There  is  a  way  out  of  this  dilemma;  it  is, 
to  accept  the  Nestorian  distinction  between  one 
Christ  that  was  human,  and  another  Christ  that 
was  divine.  Such  a  distinction,  though  it  can- 
not long  satisfy  the  mind,  may  serve  to  bridge 
the  gulf  between  faith  in  Him  as  God,  and  re- 
spect for  Him  as  an  earnest  though  erring  man. 
Critics  of  the  advanced  school  may  still  pro- 
fess confidence  in  the  living  oracles,  but  the 
probability  is  that  the  next  generation  will  kick 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :   A.D.  4.3 1.       1 67 

the  crazy  platform  away  and  repudiate  all  rev- 
erence for  the  Book,  save  as  a  literary  curiosity 
and  venerable  relic  of  the  past.  So  the  man 
who  takes  refuge  in  the  Nestorian  hypothesis, 
from  doubt  of  the  statement  that  "  in  Christ 
were  hidden  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and 
knowledge,"  must  end  in  giving  up  the  idea  of 
the  Divinity  and  falling  back  on  that  of  the 
mere  humanity.  He  walks  a  plank  across  a 
roaring  torrent,  which  soon  must  break,  and 
launch  him  into  the  abyss  beneath. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  another  point : 
the  tendency  to  dwell  on  the  human  side  in 
Christ,  until  it  seems  to  be  forgotten  that  there 
was  another.  The  idol  of  our  age,  as  everyone 
sees,  is  humanity  :  Men  never  tire  of  lauding, 
extolling,  and  magnifying  the  "  golden  image  " 
which  they  have  set  up.  Along  with  this  glori- 
fication of  human  nature  for  its  own  sake,  goes 
a  devotion  to  the  temporal  interests  of  man 
which  implies  that  his  eternal  interests,  allow- 
'ing  that  he  has  any,  are  of  comparatively  slight 
importance.  Religion  seems  now  to  be  taken 
as  consisting  solely  in  philanthropic  effort ;  so- 
cial reform  is  more  necessary  than  spiritual. 
Houses  are  built  and  endowed  and  carried  on 
by  Christian  men,  for  good  work  of  every  kind 
except  teaching  and  training  in  Gospel  truth 
and  Christian  doctrine ;    foreign  missions   are 


1 68      THE    COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :    A.D.  4.JI. 

recommended  on  the  ground  that  commercial 
and  material  advantages  must  result  to  the 
profit  of  the  world  at  large,  and  with  a  lurking 
idea  that  the  souls  of  the  heathen  are  in  no  ap- 
preciable danger  at  present,  and  that  the  relig- 
ions which  they  have  are  good  enough  for 
them.  It  falls  in  with  this  drift  that  men,  if 
they  still  keep  up  an  interest  in  Christ,  should 
dwell  on  the  Human  in  Him,  and  let  the  Di- 
vine go.  What  more  natural?  The  less  we 
feel  a  personal  need  of  God,  the  less  do  we  re- 
quire a  Divine  Redeemer ;  and  wherever  re- 
ligion and  morals  are  divorced  the  statements 
of  the  Creed  sound  like  metaphysical  puzzles 
of  which  one  cannot  see  the  bearing  on  the 
practical  interests  of  the  age.  "  What  need  of 
a  Divine  Christ  ?  We  are  all  divine ;  we  are 
all  the  sons  of  God  ;  forms  of  faith  make  no 
difference  ;  man's  help  cometh  from  himself, 
from  within.  That  Christ  of  the  Creed  was 
after  all  a  man  first,  one  of  our  glorious  throng, 
the  noblest  Roman  of  them  all."  One  may  not 
be  prepared  to  go  quite  so  far  as  this  ;  he  may 
still  desire  to  retain  somewhat  of  the  old  no- 
tions of  Christ  as  God ;  let  him  ask  help  of  Nes- 
torius,  and  discern  with  him  between  two 
Christs ;  the  Christ-man  and  the  Christ-God. 
The  Man  Christ  is  the  thing  we  want,  the  phi- 
lanthropist, the   social   reformer.      As  for  the 


THE    COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :   A.D.4JI.       1 69 

Christ-God,  acceptance  of  the  idea  is  a  conces- 
sion to  orthodoxy ;  that  Christ  is  a  poetic  and 
legendary  vision,  fading  out,  faster  and  faster, 
from  year  to  year. 

Once  more ;  consider  the  intense  hostility  of 
the  modern  mind  to  the  supernatural  and  the 
miraculous.  That  feeling  in  the  outside  world 
is  a  source  of  continual  uneasiness  to  many 
timid  and  scary  believers  ;  impressed  by  the 
bold  talk  which  they  hear  all  around,  they 
think  there  must  be  something  in  it ;  at  all 
events  something  ought  to  be  done  ;  and  so 
they  make  concessions,  perhaps  with  the  hope 
of  winning  over  the  unbeliever,  possibly  with 
a  desire  to  shield  themselves  from  a  criticism 
which  stings  them  and  hurts  their  pride.  Here 
again  Nestorius  helps  them ;  he  shows  them 
how  to  drop  the  miraculous  and  supernatural 
out  of  the  account  of  Christ,  so  as  to  please  the 
heretics,  while  yet  holding  in  petto  the  opinion 
that  God  was  with  him,  and  that  somehow  or 
other  He  was  a  sort  of  a  divine  being,  and  had 
a  side  on  which  trust  and  adoring  love  may 
approach  and  take  comfort.  The  idea  of  a  hu- 
man Christ  may,  it  is  hoped,  be  tolerated  by 
the  sceptics  ;*  the  divine  they  will  not  hear  of 

*  Not  for  long,  however.  See  the  recent  production  of  Robert 
Buchanan,  who  pictures  Christ  as  the  Wandering  Jew,  and  charges 
Him,  as  the  author  of  all  our  troubles,  in  having  deceived  men 


170      THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :   A.D.  4JI. 

for  an  instant ;  wherefore  let  us,  for  the  nonce, 
keep  the  Divine  Christ  carefully  out  of  sight, 
and  throw  out  the  human  Christ  as  a  tub  to  the 
whale ;  we  may  not  win  the  heretic,  but  at  all 
events  we  shall  impress  him  with  an  opinion  of 
our  moderation,  good  judgment,  and  common 
sense. 

Ephesus  is  a  most  practical  Council ;  the  is- 
sues which  it  presents  can  no  more  be  evaded 
in  1893  than  in  431.  Its  decrees  are  like  the 
Word  of  God,  "  quick  and  powerful  and  sharper 
than  any  two-edged  sword,  discerning  the 
thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart."  When  we 
commune  with  the  fathers  of  Nicsea,  our  re- 
flections carry  us  back  into  the  depths  of  eter- 
nity, before  created  things  existed  ;  but  at  Ephe- 
sus the  talk  is  of  topics  of  the  day,  and  the 
characters  and  acts  of  the  men  have  a  very 
human  cast  and  air.  The  point  at  Nicasa  was 
as  to  the  honor  really  due  to  the  Son  of  God ; 
whether  He  was  a  created  being  or  of  one  sub- 
stance with  the  Father,  and  therefore  from  eter- 
nity. At  Ephesus  the  question  was  whether 
there  be  two  Christs  or  one  ;  and  if  one, 
whether  He  was  a  man,  or  God  over  all  blessed 
forevermore;    whether   when    they   looked    at 

with  false  promises,  preaching  to  them  of  a  Father  and  a  heaven 
which  do  not  exist,  and  robbing  us  of  peace  by  arousing  desires 
which  never  can  be  satisfied. 


rilE    COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :  A.D.  4JI.       I/I 

Him,  the}'  saw  another  man  like  themselves,  or 
whether  they  saw  God  and  were  not  consumed. 
That  is,   after  all,  the  vital   point.      It  is  met 
everywhere  and  all  the  time.     It  involves  the 
truth  of  the  Incarnation,  as  a  taking,  not  one 
individual  but  collective    manhood  into  union 
with   the   Godhead.     It  involves  the  questions 
about  sin  and  atonement ;  for  if  Christ  was  a 
human  person,  how  does  it  comport  with  what 
we  are  told  of  the  love  and  mercy  of  God,  that 
He  should  have  laid  on  that  one  man  the  aw- 
ful work  of  our  redemption  and  the  sins  of  us 
all  ?     Or  why  have  we  been  taught  to  hold  sin 
in  such   horror  as  we  do,  and  to  dread   its   pen- 
alty as  we  do,  but  because  we  believe  that  the 
Personal  interposition  of  God  Himself  was  re- 
quired   to    take    it   away  ?     The   question    dis- 
cussed   and   settled    at     Ephesus   involves   the 
truth  of  Christianity  as  it  has  been  preached 
for  nineteen  hundred  years,  and  every  present 
social,  ethical,  and  economical  subject  in  which 
Christianity  enters  as  a  factor.     It  involves  the 
vital  question  of   personal  religion.     Personal 
religion  is  the  only  true  religion  :  a  personal 
God  the  only  true  God,  because  the  only  God 
that  can  see,  hear,  act,  to  whom  men  can  speak, 
whom  men  can  love.     And  a  personal  Saviour 
is  the  desire  of  all  who  feel  the  need  of  salva- 
tion ;  and  when  we  come  to  Christ  in  earnest, 


1/2      THE    COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :   A.D.  4.JI. 

and  not  as  speculative  philosophers,  we  must 
know  that  He  is  the  Person  whom  we  seek. 
We  cannot  be  put  ofE  with  abstractions  and  un- 
realities. It  could  not  have  been  abstract  hu- 
manity that  was  born  of  Mary  ;  it  was  a  Child 
as  rea.1  and  true  in  His  way  as  the  mother  was 
in  hers.  It  was  not  on  humanity  in  the  abstract 
that  John  Baptist  poured  the  waters  of  Jordan  ; 
what  Pilate  condemned  to  die  and  what  the 
soldiers  nailed  to  the  Cross  was  not  an  abstrac- 
tion. Throughout  it  all,  it  was  some  Person 
who  was  born,  and  baptized,  who  wrought 
miracles,  died,  descended  into  Hades,  and  rose 
again,  and  went  up  on  high.  Whoever  He 
was,  that  Person  was  our  Saviour.  Ephesus, 
practical  Ephesus,  tells  us  who  it  was,  and  con- 
firms to  Mary  the  title  which  carries  the  awful 
truth.  And  that  is  the  most  practical  of  all 
truths,  because  it  is  that  on  which  the  hope 
and  trust  of  man  are  built.  "  Christ  is  made 
the  sure  foundation,  and  the  precious  Corner- 
stone." "  Christ  is  God  over  all,  blessed  for 
evermore."  To  deny  His  Personal  truth  and 
reality  at  one  point,  is  to  deny  it  everywhere. 
Deny  it  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin,  and  your 
denial  drags  after  it  a  series  of  denials  involv- 
ing His  whole  earthly  life ;  His  truth  and  real- 
ity in  the  manger,  in  the  wilderness,  in  the 
ministry,  in  the  garden,  on  the  Cross,  in  Hades, 


THE    COUXCIL    OF  EPHESUS  :   A.D.  4JI.       1 73 

at  the  Resurrection,  at  the  Right  Hand  of  God, 
in  the  second  advent  at  the  end  of  the  world. 
Here  is  a  cycle  of  truths,  in  which  all  stands 
or  falls  together.  "  Theotokos "  is  the  test 
word,  which  assures  to  us  a  Divine  Saviour, 
and  defends  us  from  a  variety  of  Christs,  a  plu- 
rality of  redeemers,  and  the  dream  of  one  man 
who  delivered  himself  and  his  companions  by 
growing  up  into  the  likeness  of  God. 

We  are  not  of  those  who  think  that  the  world 
can  be  made  better  without  the  help  of  Christ. 
On  the  contrary,  we  believe  that  it  is  He  who 
has  transformed  the  world  ;  that  faith  in  Him 
is  the  salt  which  preserves  society  from  cor- 
ruption ;  that  the  future  of  the  race  depends  on 
the  spread  of  His  ideas,  His  grace,  His  power; 
that  the  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  the 
poor,  the  drawing  of  men  toward  one  another 
in  love,  the  cessation  of  wars  and  civic  strife, 
the  purification  of  governments,  and  everything 
else  for  which  earnest  hearts  do  long,  are  to  be 
brought  about  by  Christ's  personal  presence 
and  power  in  the  souls  and  hearts  of  men,  and 
not  by  lectures  on  ethics  and  philosophy,  or 
scientific  study,  or  abstract  reasoning,  or  the 
influence  of  intellectual  persons  on  the  age. 
Believinof  as  we  do  in  this  absolute  and  indis- 
pensable  need  of  Christ,  we  must  be  jealous 
of  any  influence  which  detracts  from  His  real- 


174      THE    COUNCIL    OF  EPHESUS :   A.D.  4.JI. 

ity  or  tends  to  cast  a  doubt  on  His  identity. 
There  are  many  Christs ;  there  is  only  one  true 
and  Very  Christ.  We  shall  lose  Him,  if  we 
lose  the  truth  about  Him  ;  we  cannot  afford  to 
think  that  it  makes  no  matter  who  or  what  He 
was  and  is,  or  that  we  can  have  His  influence, 
His  help,  His  light  and  grace,  in  any  other  way 
than  by  having  Himself.  The  Church  has  one 
clear,  plain,  straightforward  doctrine  concern- 
ing Him  ;  she  must  insist  on  its  necessity  ;  she 
must  point  to  the  fact,  that  whenever  that  has 
been  denied,  men  are  at  the  mercy  of  some  one 
or  other  of  those  pretended  Christs,  or  anti- 
christs, that  have  gone  out  into  the  world. 

The  great  Councils  of  the  Church  are  to 
us  a  precious  part  of  our  heritage ;  without 
them  the  true  Christ  might  have  been  lost  to 
us  long  ago.  In  their  unerring  decisions,  we 
have  the  answer  to  the  everlasting,  ever  press- 
ing question,  "  What  think  ye  of  CJirist  ?  "  The 
careful  study  of  their  acts  is  incumbent  on 
every  member  of  our  communion ;  to  the  neg- 
lect of  that  study  it  is  no  doubt  due  that  so 
many  are  weak  and  sickly  among  us  and  so 
many  sleep.  The  acceptance  of  their  dogmatic 
decisions  ex  anhno,  would  be  the  reunion  of 
Christendom,  and  the  cessation  of  the  discord 
and  unhappy  divisions  by  which  we  are  now 
afflicted  and  sore  distressed.      But  though  that 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  EPIIESUS  :   A.D.  ^JI.      175 

be,  for  the  present,  impossible,  yet  remember, 
that  those  dogmatic  decrees,  as  a  statement  of 
the  truth,  can  never  be  superseded,  that  they 
form  a  part  of  the  basis  of  our  Church  Law, 
that  they  are  the  living-  tests  of  current  relig- 
ious opinion  ;  and  that,  however  current  opin- 
ion may  vary  and  change,  the  words  of  the 
Councils  must  still  constrain  whosoever  would 
know  the  truth  and  keep  it.  Schools  of  thought 
will  have  their  day,  and  cease  to  be ;  sects  will 
persist,  as  they  have  persisted,  side  by  side 
with  the  Church  :  and  though  condemned  again 
and  again,  retain  vitality,  and  exercise  an  in- 
fluence. But  the  Catholic  Church  has  the  Di- 
vine promise  that  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  pre- 
vail against  her,  and  the  faith  contained  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  preached  to  us  by  Christ  and 
His  Apostles,  defined  by  the  Councils,  and 
transmitted  as  a  sacred  deposit  to  us,  shall  still 
be  held  and  taught,  whatever  change  may  come 
upon  the  world,  and  still  be  reverently  received 
so  long  as  there  are  eyes  to  see  and  ears  to 
hear  ;  minds  to  take  in  the  mysteries  revealed 
to  us  by  the  Spirit,  and  hearts  to  love  that  God 
who  in  the  last  days  hath  spoken  to  us  in  the 
One  Undivided  Person  of  His  Only  Begotten 
and  Eternal  Son. 


Zbc  Council  of  Chalcc^Oll. 


LECTURE  V. 

THE    REV.    JOHN   J.    ELMENDORF,   S.T.D., 

Instructor  in  Apologetics  and   Moral   Theology  at  the  Western 
Theological  Seminary,  Chicago. 

THE   COUNCIL   OF  CHALCEDON. 

To  one  who  after  a  quarter  of  a  century  re- 
turns to  his  natal  city  for  the  purpose  of  bring- 
ing his  little  basket  of  such  fruit  as  he  could 
gather  in  quiet  study,  it  may  be  allowed  to 
utter,  first  of  all,  his  devout  thanksgiving  to 
our  gracious  Father,  for  the  wonderful  signs  of 
His  favorable  presence  and  spiritual  work  in 
the  midst  of  us.  Only  he  whose  experience  is 
of  the  distant  past  in  this  city,  can  tell  even  a 
small  part  of  this  wonderful  work  ;  not  least  in 
it,  surely,  this  Church  Club  which  it  is  per- 
mitted to  me  now  to  address. 

I.  Introduction. 

If  we  could  reverse  the  course  of  the  ages, 
and  could  be  carried  back  1442  years  to  the  year 
of  our  Lord  451,  and  be  set  down  on  the  shores 


l8o  THE    COUNCIL    OF  CHALCEDON: 

of  the  Bosphorus  with  our  own  habits,  customs, 
and  ideas,  we  might  well  be  perplexed  and  as- 
tounded at  such  a  synod  as  was  assembled  at 
Chalcedon.  As  Catholic  Churchmen,  we  might 
be  inclined  to  ask  ourselves,  "  Is  this  a  council 
of  the  Christian  Church  ?  Or,  are  we  dream- 
ing of  a  political  convention,  met  to  nominate  a 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  transferred 
from  an  American  city  to  the  remote  past  and 
the  suburbs  of  Constantinople  ?  " 

We  might  admire  the  marvellous  beauty  of 
the  situation  as  we  turned  from  the  wooded 
mountains  on  one  side  to  look  down  the  gentle 
slope  at  the  rippling  waters  of  the  Bosphorus 
and  the  shining  domes  of  the  great  city  oppo- 
site (Evagrius,  i.  3).  But  this  armed  guard, 
keeping  back  the  crowd  of  disorderly  monks 
and  a  rabble  of  the  lowest  sort  *  (see  the  Em- 
press Pulcheria's  letter,  Hardouin,  tom.  ii..  Part 
I.,  c.  xxxiii),  those  tumultuous  shouts  which  re- 
verberate through  the  great  church  of  S.  Eu- 
phemia,  those  passionate  gestures  which  betray 
the  rivalries  and  jealousies,  the  ambition  and 
the  covetousness  of  holy  Bishops — what  shall 
we  say  of  these  ?  Can  the  Spirit  of  God,  can 
the   pure,   peaceable,  and  holy  religion   of  the 

*  The  synod,  first  summoned  to  Nice,  was  afraid  of  going  to 
Chalcedon  for  fear  of  the  Eutychian  mob.  Hardouin,  loc.  cit., 
cxxxiv. 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  CHALCEDON:  i8i 

crucified  Lord,  be  found  in  such  men  as  these? 
And  will  their  decisions,  if  you  call  their  "  plat- 
form "  by  such  a  name,  be  anything  more  than 
the  partisan  act  of  a  temporary  majority,  enjoy- 
ing the  emperor's  favor  and  shouting  down 
their  rivals,  or  forcing  them  to  a  seeming  ac- 
quiescence in  what  they  will  reverse  to-mor- 
row, if  compulsion  or  self-interest  lead  or  drive 
them  ? 

I  present  at  once  this  side  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  as  strongly  as  enemies  of  the  Catho- 
lic faith  have  done  (see  Gibbon,  c.  xlvii. ;  Mil- 
man's  "  Latin  Christianity,"  Book  ii.,  c.  iv.), 
not  with  a  view  to  an  attempted  apology  for  it, 
but  in  order  that  we  may  the  more  deeply  feel 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  body  of 
Christ,  the  controlling  influence  of  that  Spirit 
who  uses  even  the  passions  and  prejudices  of 
men  for  His  own  everlasting  counsels  of  wis- 
dom and  holiness. 

Fair  justice  would,  of  course,  lead  us  to  re- 
mark that  these  Bishops  are,  with  few  excep- 
tions. Orientals,  untrained  in  the  order  of  delib- 
erative assemblies,  such  as  are  our  own  heritage 
for  man}^  generations.  They  do  not  know  the 
virtues  of  a  vote  by  ballot.  They  are  impulsive 
and  passionate  by  birth  and  habit.  They  have 
no  Anglo-Saxon  gift  of  hiding  their  errors  and 
passions,  whatever  those  may  be.      They   are 


1 82  THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON. 

but  men ;  and,  like  the  critic  who  exposes  their 
imperfections,  they  have  their  share  of  human 
nature ;  and  we  must  admit  that  there  is  much 
human  nature,  even  in  Bishops. 

And  it  is  well  worthy  of  our  notice  that  this 
synod  of  the  Catholic  Church  is  the  only  free 
assembly  in  the  civilized  world  of  its  age  where 
free  discussion  and  voting  of  any  kind  have  any 
place.  For  the  invisible  kingdom  of  God  is 
outwardly  the  Republic  of  God,  the  one  ever- 
lasting republic  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  And 
this  Divine  republic,  not  any  one,  or  any  num- 
ber of  its  rulers,  is  the  one  organ  whereby  the 
Revelation  of  God  once  given  is  preserved  and 
transmitted  from  age  to  age,  the  organ  where- 
by the  Spirit  of  God  gives  light  to  receive,  to 
apprehend,  and  to  express,  the  faith  once  de- 
livered to  the  saints.  Therefore  we  shall  be 
blind  indeed  if  we  look  only  at  the  signs  of 
evil  passions  in  this  man  or  that.  There  is 
something  deeper,  truer,  and  greater  than 
those,  even  in  a  political  convention  to-day. 
There  are  great  principles  beneath  that  stormy 
flood  of  personal  rivalries  and  passions.  Much 
more  then,  infinitely  more,  in  a  lawful  synod  of 
the  whole  Catholic  Church,  representative  of 
the  Body  of  Christ,  of  the  organ  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  That  lives,  though  its  members  decay. 
The   old   oak    survives,  though  many  a  dead 


THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON.  1 83 

branch  wait  only  for  the  storm  wind  to  snap  it 
off. 

In  this  synod  is  something  far  waser  than  the 
"  Christian  consciousness,"  as  it  is  called  by 
some,  of  the  wisest  there  ;  something  holier  than 
the  judgment  of  the  holiest  among  those  five 
hundred  and  twenty  most  reverend  fathers. 
For,  as  the  late  episcopal  pastoral  so  forcibly 
said,  '*  The  Church  is  wiser  than  her  wisest 
member,  holier   than    her   holiest    member."* 


*Dorner  (Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.,  vol.  i.,  102)  seems  to  think 
that  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  had  not  canonical  authority,  be- 
cause the  Bishops  exhibited  so  many  human  characteristics,  so 
much  "ungodliness  in  thought  and  act,  were  not  unanimous  in 
their  judgment,  were  vacillating,"  etc.  Milman  also  (Latin  Chris- 
tianity, vol.  i.)  presents  the  harshest,  darkest  view  of  the  synod  ; 
"intrigue,  injustice,  violence,  decisions  by  wild  acclamation  in- 
stead of  sober  inquiry,"  etc.,  etc. 

But,  admitting  all  that  he  says  as  unperverted  by  exaggeration, 
and  as  making  due  allowance  for  the  Oriental  temperament  and 
the  lack  of  experience  in  parliamentary  forms,  yet  still  is  true, 
also,  what  Professor  SchafI  so  well  observes  (History  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  vol.  i.,  sect.  138),  "Truth,  authority,  and  reverence, 
are  on  the  side  of  the  OEcumenical  synod— and  human  passions,  if 
there,  will  only  make  more  conspicuous  the  unseen  Presence  of  tlie 
Divine  Spirit  in  the  Body  of  Christ."  He  Who  said  that  that 
Spirit  would  "guide  into  all  truth,"  was  not  speaking  of  mdi- 
vidual  men  as  such.  The  promise  is  made  to  His  own  mystical 
Body,  and  that  Body  is  to  be  judged  by  its  official  acts,  and  not 
by  the  worst  acts  of  its  worst  members. 

The  authority  of  this  OEcumenical  synod  is  not  for  us  in  the 
Church  an  open  question. 


1 84     THE   COUNCIL    OF  CHALCEDON. 

And  here  at  Chalcedon  is  met  the  fullest  repre- 
sentation of  the  Church  of  God,  since  the  Apos- 
tolic Council  at  Jerusalem  decided  how  Gentile 
converts  should  order  their  Christian  life.  The 
great  patriarch  of  Rome  has  his  legates  here, 
taking  the  lead  in  discussion  ;  I  cannot  say  "  pre- 
siding," a  word  which  would  mislead  you,  but 
taking  the  lead  under  the  presidency  of  the 
Catholic  emperor's  commission,  who,  as  we  say, 
"  take  the  chair,"  whenever  they  are  present, 
and  leave  it  vacant  in  their  rare  absence.*  Of 
course,  if  all  the  five  great  patriarchs  are  met 
in  full  (Ecumenical  synod,  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
or  his  official  representatives  have  the  primacy 
of  honor  (ra  irpealSela  t?}?  ti/xt}?).  The  third 
canon  of  the  second  general  Council,  that  which 
met  at  Constantinople,  implies  and  recognizes 
that,  in  giving  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  the 
second  place  of  honor. 

And  this  primacy  is  very  explicitly  recog- 
nized by  those  who  meet  at  Chalcedon,  in  their 
letter  to  Leo  I.,  of  Rome,  in  which  they  say 
(Hardouin,  tom.  ii.,  p.  655  ;  Leonis  Ep.  98,  Ed. 
Migne),  "  thou  indeed,  in  those  who  held  thy 
place,  didst  take  the  lead  {rijefioi/evefi),  but  the 
believing  emperors  presided  for  the  sake  of 
good  order."     This  is  very  far  removed  from 


*  See  Appendix,  Claims  of  the  Roman  See,  6. 


THE   COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDONY  1 85 

the  autocratic  supremacy  now  claimed  for  the 
pope  by  ultramontanes.  The  other  four  Patri- 
archs are  here  at  Chalcedon  in  person.  Ana- 
tolius,  of  Constantinople,  whose  see  is  rapidly 
acquiring  something  more  than  the  mere  hono- 
rary position  of  the  second  see  in  Christendom  ; 
Dioscorus  of  Alexandria,  here  at  the  opening, 
though  destined  not  to  be  here  very  long  ;  Maxi- 
mus  of  Antioch  and  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem  are 
here ;  and  with  these  all  the  great  metropolitans 
of  Eastern  Christendom. 

In  place  of  our  omnipresent  reporters,  many 
of  the  Bishops  have  their  notaries.  And  if  we 
may  judge  from  their  full  reports  of  debate, 
those  notaries  must  have  had  as  useful  a  short- 
hand at  their  disposal  as  the  best  of  our  news- 
paper reporters. 

In  the  centre  of  the  church,  before  the  altar- 
rails,  are  the  imperial  commissioners.  In  the 
midst  of  the  assembly  are  placed  the  holy  Gos- 
pels, the  heavenly  word  which  is  to  dii'ect  their 
judgment.  This  is  our  first  view  of  the  Oecu- 
menical Synod  of  Chalcedon,  And  when  its 
decrees,  sanctioned  by  the  Catholic  emperors 
of  the  East  and  the  West,  have  been  ratified  by 
the  assent  of  the  Church  at  large  through  the 
great  majority  of  its  sixteen  hundred  or  two 
thousand  Bishops,  we  shall  have  the  surest  con- 
fidence which  can  be  had  on  earth,  that  wc  in- 


1 86     THE   COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON: 

deed  possess  the  judgment  of  that  Spirit  Who, 
as  the  Lord  said,  is  guiding  us  into  all  truth, 
and  opening  our  hearts  to  understand  the  Holy- 
Scriptures  respecting  that  Lord  Jesus  Himself. 
And  so  we  may  confidently  answer  that  great- 
est of  all  questions,  What  think  ye  of  Christ  ? 
Who  is  Christ  ?     What  is  Christ  ? 

n.  Why  is  the  Synod  Met? 

What  brought  together  five  hundred  and 
twenty  or  six  hundred  and  thirty  Bishops, 
whichever  the  number  may  have  been,  at 
Chalcedon  ?  A  brief  historical  retrospect  will 
introduce  the  answer  to  that  question.  The 
Church  Club  has  already  heard  the  story  of 
the  third  CEcumenical  synod  which  met  twen- 
ty years  before,  at  Ephesus.  You  will  recall 
therefore,  gentlemen,  the  circumstances  ;  that 
there  were  then  not  a  few  calling  themselves 
Christians  and  reciting  the  creed  of  Nice  and 
Constantinople,  who  yet  succeeded,  as  they 
might  do  to-day,  if  they  were  living  to-day,  in 
putting  such  a  construction  on  that  creed  as 
directly  contradicted  the  intention  and  mean- 
ing of  those  who  first  uttered  it,  being  contrary 
also  to  the  faith  once  for  all  delivered  to  the 
saints.  Nestorians  might  profess  to  believe  in 
Christ,  God  and  Man,  but  they  did  not  believe 


THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON.  \%^ 

in  our  one  Lord  and  Saviour.    At  least,  in  words 
they   denied    Him.     Tliey   thought   that   God 
had  foreseen  the  holiness  of  the  man  Jesus,  Son 
of  Mary,  and  so  had  filled  Him  with  the  pres- 
ence  of   the    eternal    Word    and    Holy   Spirit. 
Thus  the  Godhead  dwelt  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
as  in  a  holy  temple.     So  also,  in  lesser  degree, 
but  after  the   same  manner,  might  God  dwell 
in   us.     Christ,  then,  was   not   in   any    proper 
sense   the    Mediator   between    God   and   man. 
As  Mary  could  have  conceived  and  given  'birth 
to  only  one  person,  they  said  that  that  was  a 
human  person.     He  that  died  on  the  cross  was 
a  suffering  man,  but  we  are  not  redeemed  by 
the  Blood  of  God's  eternal  Son.     The  Catholic 
Church,  with  unerring  inspiration,    perceived 
that  in  the  long  run,  at  least,  such  heresy  must 
destroy  all  true  faith  in  Christ.     Therefore  this 
was  no  question  about  words  or  nice  distinc- 
tions  in   theology  ;  no   question    of    liberality 
against  bigotry.     Like  the   Eutychian   heresy, 
to  which  we  are  now  coming,  it  was  a  question 
of  true   loyalty  to  Christ   and    His  holy  and 
saving  Gospel.     The  Church    was   created  to 
preserve  the  faith.     If  she  should  let  it  go  or 
let  it   be  confounded  with  what  truly  contra- 
dicted it,  she  would  fail  of  the  end  of  her  exist- 
ence, and  would  perish.     (See  Schaff's  History 
of  the  Church,  vol.  iii.,  p.  757-)     Very  active, 


1 88  THE    COUNCIL    OF  CHALCEDON. 

when  the  third  Qicumenical  synod  condemned 
Nestorius,   was  a  certain  Eutyches,  afterward 
archimandrite  of  three  hundred  monks  at  Con- 
stantinople, and  the  originator,  or  at  least  the 
prominent  enunciator,  of  a  new  form  of  heresy. 
For  it  was  still  possible  to  recite  the  Catholic 
creed,   and  yet,  in  some  other  than   the    Nes- 
torian  way,  sincerely,  I   do  not  say  logically, 
to  put  such  a  construction  on  that  creed  as  is 
wholly  alien  to  the  Christian  faith,  and  in  the 
long  run,  if   successful,    destined   to  extirpate 
that  faith  from  our  minds  and  hearts.     This,  of 
course  can  never  be  ;  but  the  Church  felt  the 
momentous  nature  of  the    controversy   going 
on,   not   against   external   enemies,  but  within 
her   own  borders.     There  might  be  those  too 
ill-instructed,  or  too  "  liberal,"  that  is  to  say,  too 
indifferent,  to  care  for  anything  but  quiet  and 
peace.     But  the  loyal  defenders  of  the  faith  felt 
that  in  the  one  Christian  communion  contradic- 
tory answers  to  the  question.  Who  and  What  is 
the   Saviour  of  the  world,  must  not  be  given. 
Perhaps,  if  we  could  trace  the  lingering  life  of  the 
old  pantheism,*  which  had  fought  the  last  fight 

*  See  Dorner's  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.,  vol.  i.,  p.  8i,  iii- 
113,  Eng.  Trans. 

"The  germs  of  pantheism,"  says  Dorner  (p.  133),  who  certainly 
■will  not  be  suspected  of  any  want  of  sympathy  with  Monophy- 
sites,  "were  slumbering  in  Monophysitism."    These  heretics,  then, 


THE   COU.YCIL    OF  CHALCEDON:  1 89 

against  the  Church,  and  had  seemed  to  receive 
its  death -wound,  but,  "having  its  deadly 
wound  healed,"  was  still  speaking  with  bated 
breath  from  within  the  Christian  fold,  we 
miofht  be  able  to  see  the  connection  between 
the  new  form  of  heresy  and  the  old  enemy  of 
Christendom.  Not  this  perhaps  in  the  case  of 
Eutyches,  who  was  no  philosopher,  and,  as  S. 
Leo  thought,  not  much  of  a  theologian,  but  in 
Alexandria,  for  example,  where  he  found  abler 
and  more  powerful  defenders. 

Be  this  as  it  may,  Eutyches  was  not  alone  at 
Constantinople  in  denying  the  existence  of  two 
distinct  natures  in  Christ  our  Saviour.  The 
human  nature,  perhaps  he  thought,  was  lost 
and  swallowed  up  at   the  Incarnation   in   the 


as  continuators  of  Eutychianism,  will  show  us  more  clearly  what 
it  really  meant.  One  noteworthy  Monophysite,  in  488  A.D. , 
maintained  that  every  creature  is  consubstantial  with  the  God- 
head. (This  pantheist  would  not  hesitate  to  confess  the  Homo- 
ousios.)  He  said  that  in  the  end  all  things  would  be  transformed 
into  the  Divine  nature.  And  he  discovered  that  S.  Paul  was  on 
his  side.  All  the  ungodly  were  to  be  purified  by  fire,  that 
"God  may  be  all  in  all."     (I.  Cor.  xv.  28.) 

Later  still,  under  Justinian,  the  pantheistic  mystic,  Dionysius 
Areop.,  is  cited  by  the  Monophysites  in  their  justification. 
(Hefele,  iii.,  p.  456.)  Of  course  there  was  opposition  to  tliis 
among  Monophysites  themselves,  because,  as  is  usual  in  such 
cases,  many  were  more  Christian  than  their  creed,  and  revolted 
against  such  pantheistic  development,  although  their  own  creed 
implied  it. 


190  THE   COUNCIL    OF  CHALCEDON. 

Divine  nature.  We  may  not  be  very  certain 
what  he  meant  to  affirm,  or  how  he  explained 
to  himself  his  own  belief  ;  but  what  he  denied 
is  plain  enough.  He  said  that  he  vmhesitatingly 
accepted  the  Creed  of  Nice  and  Constantinople, 
together  with  the  decrees  of  Ephesus,  which 
explained  that  Creed.  (Hardouin,  ii,,  p.  98, 
ed.  Paris,  17 14.)  But  the  Creed  of  Nice  spoke 
only  of  one  consubstantiality,  sc,  that  of  the 
Godhead.  He  said  that  "  he  stood  by  the 
Holy  Scriptures  alone,  which  he  searched  as 
the  Lord  told  him  to  do,  and  which  were  surer 
and  better  than  the  expositions  of  the  fathers." 
(Hardouin,  p.  142.)  But,  as  we  perceive,  he 
virtually  denied  that  Christ  our  Saviour  is  very 
man  in  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  deriving  His 
human  nature  (by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost)  from  an  earthly  mother.  Perhaps,  if 
he  had  been  more  of  a  philosopher,  he  would 
have  defended  himself  with  the  plea  that  all 
men  are  "  a  part  of  God  ;  "  that  human  nature 
is  divine,  one  nature  with  the  Godhead  ;  and 
that,  therefore,  what  is  true  of  all  men,  must  be 
true  of  Christ.  He  seems,  however,  to  have 
made  no  such  plea,  but  simply  to  have  adhered 
firmly  to  his  denial,  even  when  his  Bishop, 
Archbishop  Flavian,  two  years  before  the 
synod  of  Chalcedon,  called  on  him  to  explain 
himself  before  a  synod  of  twenty-eight  Bishops 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  CHALCEDONY  I9I 

at  Constantinople.  To-day  some  who  call  them- 
selves liberal  Christians  would  say,  "  Why  not, 
then,  leave  Eutyches  alone  to  study  his  Bible  in 
his  own  way  ?  Why  trouble  him  with  subtle 
distinctions  which  few  can  comprehend,  and 
which  have  nothing  to  do  with  practical  Chris- 
tianity?" Ah,  yes;  but  suppose  that  in  the 
long  run,  not  perhaps  for  Eutyches  himself,  but 
for  the  Church  at  large  to  zvhich  he  was  preach- 
ing, that  very  practical  Christianity  depends 
on  those  very  distinctions.  That  fact  would 
altogether  alter  the  state  of  the  question.* 
And  that  necessary  connection  between  a  true 
Christian  faith  and  true  Christian  living  was 
what  the  defenders  of  the  faith  had  learned  and 
so  stoutly  maintained.  Eutyches  was  too  pub- 
lic and  prominent  in  his  teachings  to  allow  of 
silence  and  toleration.  Declining  to  retract,  he 
was  deposed  and  expelled  from  the  communion 
of  the  Church. 

And  so  the  flood-gates  of  controversy  were 
opened.  Eutyches  found  a  powerful  defender 
in  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria.     His  answer  to 

*  "If  Christ  were  to  be  truly  owned  as  the  second  Adam,  as  a 
true  example,  a  true  sacrifice,  a  sympathizing  and  brotherly  high- 
priest,  whose  very  manhood  was  the  basis  of  the  Church,  and  the 
medium  of  His  brethren's  renewal,  the  condemnation  of  Eutyches 
was  an  inevitable  duty."  (Dr.  Bright's  History  of  the  Church, 
etc.,  p.  3S6.) 


192  THE   COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON: 

the  question,  "  What  think  ye  of  Christ  ?  "  was 
also  the  answer  of  very  many  in  the  Egyptian 
Church,  not  to  mention  other  parts  of  the  East, 
If  Neoplatonic  pantheism  survived  Porphyry 
and  lingered  in  Alexandria,  there  would  be  the 
fruitful  soil  for  Eutychianism  to  flourish  in,  since 
the  philosophy  would  offer  a  rational  and  seem- 
ingly consistent  account  of  the  doctrine.  Dios- 
corus,  then  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  and 
previously  arch-deacon  under  the  great  Cyril — 
whom  you,  gentlemen,  will  recall  in  connec- 
tion with  the  synod  of  Ephesus,  where  his  part 
was  the  leading  one — Dioscorus  took  Eutyches 
under  his  powerful  patronage.  How  shall  we 
explain  to  ourselves  this  strange  phenomenon  of 
the  second  Patriarch  in  Christendom  support- 
ing what  is  radically  opposed  to  Christian  faith  ? 
Catholic  Christians,  guided  by  the  Spirit  of 
Truth,  said,  without  hesitation,  "this  Eutychian- 
ism is  not  the  faith  delivered  to  us  to  be  kept 
whole  and  undefiled,  as  the  sole  means  of  our 
delivery  from  ruin.  This  is  no  subject  for 
freedom  of  opinion ;  it  is  a  question  of  life  or 
death  for  Christianity."  They  did  not  seek  to 
account  for  the  heresy ;  they  simply  abhorred 
and  rejected  it.  But  we,  in  later  days,  may 
possibly  find  some  explanation  of  its  origin. 

Revelation   from    God,  like    all   our   human 
sciences,  begins    with    certain    ultimate    facts 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  CI/ALCEDOiV.  1 93 

which  cannot  be  accounted  for,  or  referred  to  a 
higher  thought.  We  find  them  to  be  true,  but 
can  go  no  further.  Thus,  e.g.,  why  one  body 
attracts  another,  and  hoza  God  created  the  uni- 
verse are  equally  mysterious ;  the  latter  the  more 
so,  because,  as  I  am  confident  is  the  case,  the 
problem  simply  transcends  our  Jiunian  faculties, 
which  the  other  may  not.  But  both  are  facts ; 
the  one,  attraction,  known  by  observation ;  the 
other,  revealed  (and  believed)  as  part  of  the 
faith.  But  reason  does  not  feel  its  limits,  and 
is  always  asking,  "  How  shall  this  be?"  And 
if  a  theory  of  emanation  will  seem  to  carry 
reason  further  back  in  solving  the  inscruta- 
ble, because  transcendent  mystery  of  creation, 
proud  reason  will  not  hesitate  to  substitute 
pantheistic  emanation  in  place  of  that  first 
article  of  simple  Christian  faith,  that  God  is 
"  Creator  of  all  things,  visible  and  invisible," 
Creator  of  chaos,  of  the  first  elements  of  all 
things,  as  well  as  Maker  of  what  has  proceeded 
from  chaos  through  His  all-powerful  Word  and 
Spirit.  And  so  with  respect  to  the  Incarnation, 
which,  at  Nice,  as  you  have  heard,  was  so  firmly 
enunciated  as  part  of  our  faith.  Proud  reason 
still  asked,  "  Hotv  shall  this  be  ?  "  as  if  it  were 
not  an  ultimate  and  transcendent  truth  and  fact ; 
while  simple  faith  was  finding  in  it  the  one  only 
means  of  salvation  for  lost  and  ruined  humanitj'. 
13 


194  THE   COUNCIL    OF   CIIALCEDON. 

The  Church  might  not  understand  Jiozv  the 
eternal  Son  of  God  could  take  our  human 
nature  without  taking  some  human  person  into 
union  with  Himself,  becoming  Man  and  not  a 
man.  But  this  defect  of  comprehensibility  is 
an  essential  mark  of  a  supernatural  religion. 
What  is  comprehensible  and  comprehended 
must  be  purely  human  in  its  limits. 

But  what  and  wJiy  we  believe,  are  other  ques- 
tions. What  is  the  truth  is  a  question  answered 
for  us,  and  faith  accepts  the  answer.  Why  we 
believe  is  a  question  which  rational  men  must 
ask  and  answer.  And  the  answer  is  servicea- 
ble for  our  religious  life,  and  our  guidance  to 
the  beatific  vision  where  we  shall  not  see  in  a 
mirror  darkly,  but  face  to  face. 

Now  in  Alexandria,  if  anywhere,  would  be 
found  the  rationalistic  philosophers  {cf.  Dor- 
ner,  pp.  63-8)  offering  to  explain  the  hidden 
mysteries  of  God.  The  old  pantheistic  ema- 
nation theory,  not  being  altogether  lost,  would 
reappear  and  offer  to  tell  how  God's  Son  be- 
came incarnate.  It  would  offer  to  show  that 
there  are  not  two  natures  of  God  and  man, 
as  distinct  as  the  Creator  is  from  the  created. 
It  would  say  that  as  there  is  but  one  nature  in 
existence,  so.,  the  Divine  nature,  so  in  Christ. 
He  was  human  as  we  are ;  but  His  humanity  is 
an  emanation  from  the   Divine  nature,  for  all 


THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON.  1 95 

that  is  human  is  a  "  manifestation  "  of  the  Di- 
vine.  Humanity  is  an  emanation  from  God ; 
all  men  are  a  "  part  of  God  ; "  Christ  is  this, 
only  more  perfectly  and  in  higher  degree 
than  other  men.  i\.nd  so  pantheism  would 
masquerade  as  Christian  under  the  form  of 
Eutychian  heresy. 

It  is  indeed  very  open  to  remark  that  those 
fierce,  ignorant  Eg3'ptian  monks  who  only  six 
years  after  Chalcedon's  synod  murdered  the 
next  and  orthodox  Patriarch  of  Alexandria, 
were  not  mystical  philosophers.  Nor  were 
those  ten  thousand  no  less  fierce  and  ignorant 
monks  who  made  such  terrible  riots  in  Jerusa- 
lem and  drove  out  the  orthodox  Patriarch  be- 
cause he  would  not  denounce  the  decree  of 
Chalcedon,  mystical  philosophers.  But  we  all 
know  that  the  conscious  principles  of  the  phi- 
losopher become  the  unconscious  assumptions 
of  the  crowd.  Witness  the  French  revolution, 
the  abolition  of  American  slavery,  the  advocacy 
of  the  enfranchisement  of  women  to-day. 

But  let  us  resume  the  thread  of  our  histori- 
cal sketch.  Dioscorus  received  Eutyches  to 
the  communion  of  the  Church.  There  was  no 
infallible  vicar  of  Christ  to  whom  appeal  could 
be  made  for  an  answer  to  the  momentous  ques- 
tion. What  think  3'e  of  Christ?  So  the  Em- 
peror of  the  East,  Theodosius  II.,  was  appealed 


196  THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON. 


to  that  he  might  summon  an  Oicumenical 
synod.  In  the  interest  of  public  quiet  and  se- 
curity he  did  so.  All  five  patriarchates  were 
represented  ;  Rome  by  its  legates,  the  others 
by  the  Patriarchs  personally.  But  the  emper- 
or appointed  Dioscorus  to  preside  ;  and  the 
Roman  legates  seem  to  have  very  meekly  ac- 
quiesced in  that.  And  so  we  come  to  the  no- 
torious "  Robber-synod,"  or  "  Latrocinium." 

This  seems  a  harsh  epithet  to  apply  to  a 
synod  of  one  hundred  and  thirty -five  right 
reverend  bishops  presided  over  by  the  second 
Patriarch  in  Christendom.*  But  the  Catholic 
Church  has  named  it  so  with  general  consent, 
and,  as  we  must   admit,   she  confesses  that  a 

*  As  tending  to  indicate  the  quite  indefinite  relations  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  to  the  Catholic  Church  at  large,  it  seems  to  be 
worthy  of  notice  that  the  emperors,  in  their  letter  of  con  vocal  ion 
(liardouin,  tom.  ii.,  p.  78),  appoint  Dioscorus  to  preside,  and  Leo 
sends  his  delegates  to  attend  without  a  protest.  And  yet  this 
"Robber-synod,"  in  its  inception,  was  as  CEcumenical  as  the  first 
synod  of  Ephesus,  or  that  which  shortly  after  met  at  Chalcedon. 
The  patriarchs  all  attended  except  Leo,  who,  as  at  Chalcedon, 
was  represented  by  his  delegates.  Flavian,  of  course,  as  being 
accused,  had  no  seat  in  tlie  synod.  Leo's  epistle  (33)  to  the 
synod  refrains  from  any  claim  to  the  presidency. 

See  Hardouin,  p.  79,  for  the  emperor's  letter  in  which  the  same 
authority  in  the  synod  is  given  to  Dioscorus  which  tlie  emperor 
Marcian  afterwards  conferred  on  Leo  at  Chalcedon  (tV  a.v'bivriav 
KoX  Tct  Trpeo-jSeTa  in  the  case  of  Dioscorus  :  aov  avStrevTovvros,  for 
Leo  along  with  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem  and  Thallassius  of  Cesarea 
Cappad.).     See  also  Leo's  Epistles  XXIX.  and  XXXL 


THE   COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON.  1 97 

plentiful  crop  of  weeds  had  grown  up  in  her 
ploughed  fields. 

It  is  not  my  part  to  represent  all  the  ortho- 
dox as  holy  saints,  and  all  their  opponents  as 
robbers  and  scoundrels  of  all  sorts.  For  we 
are  only  concerned  with  the  acts  of  our  Lord's 
Body,  the  official  acts  of  His  Catholic  Church. 
But  so  much  as  this  at  least  is  evident  that 
there  is  not  now,  and  there  never  has  been, 
any  pretence  that  this  assembly  of  ill-omened 
name  was  a  true  representative  of  the  Church. 
If  we  could  put  ourselves  in  their  place  and 
enter  into  the  misunderstandings  which  pre- 
vailed ;  if  we  should  find  Archbishop  Flavian 
deprived  of  his  seat  as  under  grave  suspicion, 
and  Dioscorus  managing  everything  in  his  own 
way  under  the  emperor's  powerful  protection  ; 
if  we  should  hear  nothing  from  Leo  of  Rome, 
that  great  defender  of  the  faith,  because  Dios- 
corus had  suppressed  the  great  epistle,  that 
bulwark  of  Christian  faith,  of  which  we  shall 
presently  hear  more  ;  if  we  should  see  the 
crowd  of  monks  and  armed  soldiery  pressing 
into  the  assembly  itself  when  summoned  by 
Dioscorus;  if  we  should  hear  his  threats  and 
see  his  violence,  we  might  better  understand 
the  vacillations  of  eastern  bishops  (Antio- 
chene),  the  fears  of  Egyptian  prelates,  the  sign- 
ing in  blank  of  the  paper  on  which  afterward 


iqS         the  council  of  chalcedon. 

appeared  a  decree  in  the  name  of  the  synod, 
and  finally  the  very  remarkable  fact  that  only 
two  years  later  very  many  retracted  at  Chalce- 
don  what  they  had  done  at  Ephesus,  and  were 
reconciled  to  the  Catholic  Church.  * 

The  result,  however,  was  that  Flavian  was 
driven  from  Constantinople  and  with  such  vio- 
lence that  he  died  of  his  injuries  in  a  few  days. 
The  statesman's  aim  of  peace  at  any  price  was 
evidently  as  far  removed  as  ever.  But  Theo- 
dosius  soon  passed  from  human  sight,  and  his 
successor,  the  orthodox  Marcian,  appeared, 
Marcian,  whose  name  stands  as  hiafh  as  anv  in 
the  tediously  protracted  list  of  Byzantine  sov- 
ereigns. Even  Gibbon  seems  to  check  his  sol- 
emn sneer  when  he  encounters  that  honored 
name.  To  him,  and  to  Pulcheria,  the  associated 
empress,  Leo  wrote,  begging  that  a  new  synod 
might  be  called  to  restore  the  disturbed  and 
tottering  temple  of  the  Lord. 


*  Leo's  letter  to  the  Emperor  Theodosius  (Ep.  43)  is  confirmed 
by  too  many  witnesses  to  be  suspected  of  relying  on  misinforma- 
tion. The  Latrocinium,  he  says,  was  no  representative  of  the 
Churcli.  Some  orthodox  Bishops  were  expelled  from  the  synod. 
Many  were  deceived  by  ambiguous  words.  Others  were  com- 
pelled by  open  violence  to  assent  to  what  they  denied  in  their 
hearts.  His  own  letter  addressed  to  the  synod  was  not  permitted 
to  be  read.  Will  the  Emperor  be  pleased  to  call  a  general  synod 
of  the  Church  to  settle  disputes,  and  to  recall  those  who  have 
wandered  from  the  faith  ? 


THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON.  199 

This  was  the  origin  of  the  CEcumenical  syn- 
od of  Chalcedon. 

I    have   already    referred    to    Leo's    famous 
Epistola  Dogmatica,  addressed   to  Flavian,  and 
transcribed  for  Dioscorus  at  Ephesus,  who  sup- 
pressed it.     Never    has   the  Catholic   faith    in 
Jesus  Christ  been  more  clearly  expressed,  so 
that  the  Christian  may  know  precisely  what  it 
is  that  he  believes,  and  answer  with  clear  tones, 
who  is  the  Christ,  what  is  the  Christ.     The  let- 
ter makes  no  attempt  at  philosophical  specula- 
tions and  misty  explanations,  which  leave  plain 
men   in  confusion  as   if   they  were  dreaming-. 
But  Leo's  energy  and  devotion  in  this   great 
struirele   for   the    Christian    faith   set    him  far 
above  his  contemporaries ;  and  the  full  accept- 
ance of  this  famous  "  Tome  "  by  the  synod  of 
Chalcedon  as  a  true  statement  of  the  meaning 
of  the   Christian  creed,  gives  it  such  singular 
importance,  that  you  may  permit  me  to  repeat 
a  few  of  its  statements  for  those  who  may  not 
have  read  the  whole  of  it. 

Leo  begins  by  saying  that  Eutyches'  igno- 
rance and  heedlessness  {imprudcns)  made  him 
to  be  spiritually  blind.  Still  he  ought  to  have 
adhered  to  the  creed  which  all  candidates  for 
holy  baptism  {regencrandi)  and  all  the  faithful 
{iiniversitas  fidcliuni)  believe  and  confess.  He 
ought  to  have  humbly  received  the  evangelical 


200  THE   COUNCIL    OF  CHALCEDON. 

teaching  respecting  the  Incarnation,  to  wit, 
that  the  Eternal  and  Only-Begotten  Son  of  the 
Eternal  Father  was  "  incarnate  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  of  the  Virgin  Mary." 

This  birth  at  a  certain  period  of  this  world's 
history  took  nothing  away  from  His  eternal 
generation  by  the  Divine  Father,  and  added 
nothing  to  that.  For  we  could  not  overcome 
the  author  of  sin  and  death,  unless  He  whom 
neither  sin  could  stain  nor  death  could  keep  a 
prisoner,  should  assume  our  nature  and  make 
it  His  own. 

Thus  Eutyches  would  have  learned  that  the 
properties  of  both  natures,  both  substances,  re- 
main entire  and  complete  [salvd)  in  the  Lord, 
united  in  one  Person,  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
Lowliness  was  thus  assumed  by  majesty,  weak- 
ness by  strength,  mortality  by  eternity.  One 
and  the  same  Divine  Person  was  rich  in  His 
poverty,  omnipotent  in  His  lowliness,  impass- 
able in  tortures,  immortal  in  death. 

In  the  true  and  complete  nature  of  man,  true 
God  was  born,  complete  in  His  Divine  attri- 
butes (/;/  suis),  complete  in  the  qualities  of  man- 
hood. As  the  form  of  God  did  not  annihilate 
{adiinif)  the  form  of  a  servant,  so  the  form  of  a 
servant  did  not  impair  the  form  of  God.  He 
assumed  from  His  mother,  nature  not  guilt ; 
nor,  because  His  nativity  is  miraculous,  is  His 


THE   COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON.  201 

nature  dissimilar  from  ours.  As  the  Godhead 
is  not  changed  by  His  compassionating  us,  so' 
the  manhood  of  the  Lord  is  not  consumed  by 
its  ineffable  exaltation.  The  one  shines  forth 
in  miracles,  the  other  submits  to  insults.  He  is 
proved  to  be  God  in  this,  that  "  all  things  were 
made  by  Him."  He  is  proved  to  be  man  in 
this,  that  He  was  "  made  of  a  woman,  and  un- 
der the  law "  (Gal.  iv.  4).  The  weakness  of 
the  child  is  shown  by  the  lowliness  of  the 
cradle ;  the  greatness  of  the  Most  High  is  de- 
clared by  the  voices  of  angels.  To  hunger,  to 
thirst,  to  be  weary,  to  sleep,  is  evidently 
human ;  but  to  feed  five  thousand  men  with 
five  loaves,  to  walk  on  the  sea,  to  subdue  its 
wild  waves  by  a  word,  is  evidently  Divine. 

Each  of  these  two  forms  of  the  one  Christ 
does  in  communion  with  the  other  that  which 
is  peculiar  to  itself.  And  so,  because  of  the 
oneness  of  the  Person  in  two  natures,  what  is 
immediately  true  of  the  one  nature  is  asserted 
of  the  Lord  as  possessing  the  other  nature  {cojii- 
iminicatio  idiomatiuii).  Thus  we  read  that  the 
Son  of  Man  "came  down  from  heaven"  (S. 
John  iii.  13),  while  we  say  that  the  Son  of  God 
took  flesh  of  the  Virgin  mother,  was  cruci- 
fied, died,  and  was  buried  (see  Pearson  on 
the  Creed ;  "  Suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate  "). 
And  so,  with  much  more  to  the  same  effect. 


202  THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON. 

adding  not  one  jot  to  the  Creed,  but  rendering 
it  definite  and  clear  by  expanding  it,  this  great 
Catholic  letter.  Catholic  because  it  only  ex- 
plains the  faith  which  creeds  enunciate,  ends 
with  some  charitable  words  in  behalf  of  poor 
Eutyches. 

In  trying  not  to  be  tedious  or  superfluous 
for  those  who  have  read  S.  Leo's  Tome,  I  may 
have  been  too  brief  in  my  sketch  of  it.  But  my 
aim  is  to  show  that  the  Catholic  Church  in 
her  decrees — and  this  letter  adopted  at  Chal- 
cedon  is  such  a  decree — -(Hardouin,  ii.,  Cone. 
Chalc,  Actio  4ta)  —  gives  clear  expression  to 
revealed  truth,  states  clearly  zvJiy  the  facts  are 
made  known  ("for  us  men  and  for  our  sal- 
vation "),  but  never  imposes  on  us  any  philo- 
sophical explanation  of  the  facts,  telling  us  Jiow 
they  are,  what  they  are.  Philosophy  may  de- 
mand how  the  union  of  God  and  man  is  accom- 
plished (see  Dorner's  "  Person  of  Christ,"  pas- 
sim) ;  but  this  is  precisely  what  the  Catholic 
Church  has  no  authority  to  answer,  and  never 
does  pretend  to  answer.  Enticing  to  some  as 
such  speculations  may  be,  perhaps  they  are  pre- 
cisely what  transcends  our  human  faculties. 


THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON.  2O3 


III.    What  the  Council  Did. 

The  Council  of  Chalcedon  lives  in  the  ver- 
batim report  of  its  sayings  and  doings,  which 
give  it  all  the  life  and  reality  of  a  political  or 
ecclesiastical  convention  of  last  year.      And  we 
may  find  in  them,  1  think,  just   three  things  of 
very  special  and  permanent  significance,  if  we 
would  learn  what  the  Catholic  Church  claims  to 
be,  and  what  is  precisely  the  faith  which  we 
have  received  from  her.     We  may  learn  just 
what  it  is  to  say,  "  I  believe  in  Jesus  Christ;" 
or  if,  alas  for  us !  we  reject  the  faith,  precisely 
what  it  is  which   we  refuse  to  accept.     First, 
since  it  must  be  decided  whether  the  Patriarch 
of  Alexandria,  still  the  second  see  in  Christen- 
dom, was  entitled  to  take  his  seat  along  with 
his  brethren,  comes  the  expulsion  of  Dioscorus 
from  the  Catholic  Church.      Next  comes  the 
decree   which   explains   the    Creed  respecting 
the  Person  of  our  Lord,  and  renders  it  impossi- 
ble to  pervert  the  meaning  of  that  part  of  the 
Creed.      And  last  come  those  canons  by  which 
the  Church  maintains  not  only  her  being,  but 
her  well-being,  and  so  fulfils  the  purpose  for 
which  she  is  created  from  our  Lord's  humanity, 
and  filled  with  His  Spirit. 

But  as  Dioscorus  was  not  formally  expelled 


204  THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDO.V. 

for  being  a  Eutychian  heretic,  it  will  be  conven- 
ient for  us  to  consider  the  first  and  last  of  these 
three  acts  together,  and  so  we  shall  have  but 
two  things  to  consider ;  first,  the  inner  life  of 
the  Church  as  maintained  by  the  faith,  and  next, 
her  outer  life  in  governing  the  people  of  God. 

/.   The  ChurcJis  Faith. 

No  sooner  was  the  synod  opened  and  pre- 
liminaries in  part  adjusted,  than,  at  the  second 
session,  the  imperial  commissioners  called  upon 
the  synod  to  set  forth  a  declaration  of  the  Cath- 
olic faith,  so  that  the  erring  might  be  brought 
back  to  the  right  way  (Hard.,  ii.,  p.  271).  The 
i-eply  to  that  settles  at  once  the  position  and 
aim  of  the  Council.  It  was  not  to  give  expres- 
sion to  what  is  now  called  "  Christian  conscious- 
ness." It  was  not  to  lay  down  a  "  platform," 
as  we  call  it  in  political  life,  a  platform  on 
which  men  of  like  mind  may  unite  and  work 
peaceably  together.  The  reply  of  the  sjaiod 
was  most  explicit :  No  one  ean  draiv  up  a  neiv  for- 
mulai-y  of  the  faith.  That  is  prohibited  by  the 
decree  of  Ephesus  which  we  have  all  received, 
"  that  no  one  shall  bring  forward,  or  write,  or 
compose,  any  other  Creed  besides  that  which 
was  settled  by  the  holy  fathers  assembled  in 
the  city  of  Nice,  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  CHALCEDON.  20$ 

The  same  thing  was  just  as  explicitly  asserted 
afterward  in  the  fourth  session.  "  The  holy 
synod  holds  fast  the  rule  of  faith  which  was 
ratified  by  the  fathers  at  Nice  and  by  those  at 
Constantinople.  Moreover,  in  the  second  place, 
it  acknowledges  that  exposition  of  this  Creed 
which  was  given  by  Cyril  at  Ephesus.     In  the 

third  place,  the  letter  of  Leo  shows  quite 

clearly  what  is  the  true  faith,  and  this  faith  the 
synod  also  holds,  and  allows  nothing  to  be  added 
to  it,  or  taken  from  it." 

We  often  hear  it  asserted  as  the  mark  of  the 
true  faith  that  it  is  the  original  deposit  given 
to  the  Church  by  Jesus  her  Saviour  and  Lord. 
But  it  may  be  well  to  hear  the  same  thing  thus 
enunciated  officially  by  the  Church  herself. 
And  we  notice  also,  two  things,  different  but 
inseparably  connected,  viz.,  a.r!7>'//;<?/of  that  faith 
put  into  unchangeable  words,  and  a  meaning  at- 
tached to  that  symbol  which  controversy  de- 
velops as  the  only  permissible  meaning,  like  a 
judicial  interpretation  of  the  Constitution  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  these  United  States. 
This  latter  includes,  of  course,  the  necessary 
deductions  from  that  Creed.  Such  explanations 
and  deductions  were  contained  in  the  letters  of 
Cyril  and  Leo,  and  these  were  accepted  after 
careful  examination  by  the  synods,  and  made 
decrees  of  the  Catholic  Church. 


206  THE    COUNCIL    OF   CIIALCEDON. 

Chalcedon,  then,  Jiad  sovictliing  to  do  besides 
repeating  the  Creed  of  Nice  and  Constantino- 
ple. That  might  have  been  sufficient  if  Anti- 
christ had  not  appeared  in  a  new  form  within 
the  Church,  denying  that  the  Son  of  God  has 
come  in  our  flesh  (i  John  iv.  3).  But  Anti- 
christ had  appeared,  and  simple  acceptance  of 
the  letter  of  the  Creed  was  not  sufficient. 

It  was  not  sufficient,  for  Eutychians  professed 
to  hold  the  Nicene  Creed,  and  to  stand  by  the 
decree  of  Ephesus,  although,  as  heretics  might 
do  to-day,  it  is  evident  that  they  put  a  mean- 
ing upon  the  words  which  was  wholly  alien  to 
the  truth,  and  to  the  intention  of  those  who  set 
forth  the  S3aiibol.  No  net  of  human  words  is 
fine  enough  to  detain  those  whose  arts  are 
turned  to  evading  words.  Thus  the  Eutychian 
would  repeat  that  the  Onl3^-begotten  Son  of 
God  was  "  incarnate  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
the  Virgin  Mary ;  and  was  made  man  ;  "  but 
then  he  would  add  such  words  as  these  :  "  And 
His  human  nature  was  swallowed  up  and  lost 
in  the  Divine  nature  of  eternal  God."  * 

*  Thus  Eiityches  presents  to  the  Council  of  Ephesus  (Latro- 
cinium)  the  Nicene  Creed  as  his  faith  (Hard.,  ii.,  p.  98).  Any 
one  who  added  to  that,  he  said,  was  condemned  by  the  Council  of 
Epliesus,  over  which  Cyril  presided.  And  note  the  rejoinder  of  a 
Catholic  bishop  ;  heresy  had  rendered  further  explanations  neces- 
sary (as  it  may  do  again)  :    "  For  even   Apollinaris   received  the 


THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON.  20/ 

If  such  men  were  seducing  the  faithful  to 
that  which  in  the  end  would  lead  to  unbelief 
in  Jesus'  work  for  us,  the  Church,  as  answer- 
able for  those  committed  to  her  care,  had  obli- 
gation laid  upon  her  to  protect  the  faith.  This 
work  respecting  the  Person  of  our  adorable 
Lord,  Chalcedon  undertook,  and  did  it  so  well 
that  the  lapse  of  ages  has  suggested  no  im- 
provement in  it.  And  it  has  been  well  said 
(Staunton's  "  Place  of  Authority,"  etc.,  p.  i66), 
that  "  if  the  recollection  of  all  this  work  (of 
doctrinal  definition)  were  obliterated  from  the 
minds  of  Christendom,  it  would  have  to  be 
done  over  again,  because  the  questions  involved 
{sc.  Who  and  what  is  the  Saviour  of  the  world), 
are  such  as  must  be  faced,  sooner  or  later,  by 
an  intelligent  Christian  faith." 

Thus,  e.g.,  when  the  great  Presbyterian  com- 
munion would  set  forth  the  one  truth  amidst 
manifold  errors  respecting  the  Lord  Jesus,  it 
could  find  for  its  Westminster  Catechism  and 
longer  Confession  nothing  better  than  to  para- 

Nicene  Creed,  according  to  his  perversion  of  it.  So  the  Fathers 
added  to  '  was  incarnate,'  those  words,  '  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
the  Virgin  Mary,'  for  explanation  of  what  had  been  already  set 
forth." 

Dioscorus  condemned  Flavian  on  similar  grounds  (Hard.,  torn, 
ii.,  p.  258)  ;  see  also  the  Emperor  Theodosius'  decree  enforcing 
the  Latrociniiun  with  words  to  the  same  effect,  and  note  also  the 
letter  of  the  Eutychians  (p.  427). 


208  THE    COUNCIL    OF  CHALCEDON. 

phrase,  to  put  in  slightly  different  words,  the 
decree  of  Chalcedon.* 

The  Church,  then,  was  compelled,  by  those 
who  mistook  the  Creed,  to  explain  it,  not  to  ex- 
tend the  profession  of  our  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 
This  was  most  explicitly  declared  to  be  its  ob- 
ject (Hard.,  torn,  ii.,  p.  427).  And  it  was  done 
in  that  great  decree  which  has  fixed  once  for 
all  the  true  meaning  of  the  Creed  of  Chris- 
tendom. 

I  would  not  be  justified,  I  think,  in  mere  al- 
lusion to  the  chief  work  which  Chalcedon  has 
done  for  us.  Nor  can  I  do  less  than  recall  to 
your  notice  the  chief  portions  of  its  famous  de- 
cree :  "  The  holy  and  great  and  CEcumenical 
synod  at  Chalcedon  has  defined  as  follows : 
We  have  renewed  the  right  faith  of  the  fathers, 
have  proclaimed  to  all  the  Creed  of  the  three 
hundred  and  eighteen  as  our  own  (Nice),  and 
have  acknowledged  the  one  hundred  and  fifty 
who   accepted  it  (Constantinople).     This   wise 


*  "  The  only  Redeemer  of  God's  elect  is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
Who,  being  the  eiernal  Son  of  God,  became  man,  and  so  was,  and 
continueth  to  be,  God  and  Man,  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one 
Person  forever." — Westminster'  Shorter  Catechism. 

"Two  whole,  perfect,  and  distinct  natures — the  Godhead  and 
the  manliood,  were  inseparably  joined  together  in  one  Person, 
without  conversion,  composition,  or  confusion  :  which  Person  is 
very  God  and  Man,  yet  one  Christ,  the  only  Mediator  between 
God  and  man." — ll\stiiiii!ster  Confession, 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  CHALCEDON.  209 

and  wholesome  symbol  of  Divine  grace  would 
indeed  suffice  for  a  complete  knowledge  and 
confirmation  of  religion — therefore  the  synod 
decrees  that  the  faith  of  the  three  hundred  and 
eisfhteen  fathers  shall  remain  inviolate,  and  that 
the  doctrine  afterward  promulgated  by  the  one 
hundred  and  fifty  fathers  at  Constantinople,  on 
account  of  those  who  denied  {^axotievov^)  the 
Holy  Ghost  shall  have  equal  validity,  being  put 
forth  by  them  not  in  order  to  add  to  the  Creed 
of  Nice  anything  that  was  lacking,  but  in  order 
to  make  known  in  writing  their  thought  {evvota) 
concerning  the  Holy  Ghost,  against  the  deniers 
of  His  glory.  Following  therefore  the  Holy 
Fathers  we  all  with  one  accord  teach  the  con- 
fession of  one  and  the  same  Son,  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  perfect  in  His  Godhead  and  per- 
fect in  His  manhood,  very  God  and  very  man, 
of  a  reasonable  soul  and  of  a  body  ;  of  one  sub- 
stance with  the  Father  as  touching  the  God- 
head, and  of  one  substance  with  us  as  touching 
the  manhood ;  in  all  things  like  unto  us,  sin  ex- 
cepted ;  as  touching  the  Godhead,  begotten  of 
the  Father  before  all  worlds  ;  but  in  the  last 
days,  for  us  men  and  for  our  salvation,  con- 
ceived of  the  Virgin  Mary,  the  Mother  of  God 
(0eoTo'/co9),  according  to  His  humanity;  one 
and  the  same  Christ,  Son,  Only-begotten,  con- 
fessed in  two  natures,  without  change,  without 
14 


2IO  THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON. 

confusion  (against  Eutyches),  indivisible,  insep- 
arable (against  Nestorius)  {aav^yyrwi,  aTpeirTco^, 

And  finally,  since  here  speaks  a  representa- 
tive synod  in  the  name  of  the  inspired  Body  of 
Christ  the  Lord,  it  is  decreed  that  "  no  one 
shall  put  forth,  or  write  down,  or  compose,  or 
devise,  or  teach  a  different  faith  ;  but  those 
who  dare  to  put  together  another  faith,  or 
teach  and  deliver  another  Creed,  to  those  who 
wish  to  turn  from  paganism  or  Judaism,  or 
from  any  heresy,  if  they  are  bishops  or  other 
clergy,  shall  be  deposed ;  if  they  are  monks  or 
laymen,  they  shall  be  cut  off  from  the  commun- 
ion of  the  Church  (av!^e/j,aTi^ea^ai)."  This  de- 
cree was  signed  by  three  hundred  and  fifty-five 
bishops,t  and  accepted  by  the  Emperor  as  the 
decision  of  the  Catholic  Church,  Avhich,  in  fact, 
it  has  proved  to  be. 

And  just  here  let  me  ask  you  to  observe  once 
more  what  has  been  often  said  by  others,  that 
although  the  Church  is  the  commonwealth  of 


*  The  decree  wliich  thus  defines  and  explains  the  Creed  is 
neither  more  nor  less  than  the  (so-called)  Athanasian  Creed,  re- 
specting the  Incarnation. 

\  Whatever  may  have  been  the  motives  or  misunderstandings  of 
each  one  of  those  who,  two  years  before,  had  signed  tlie  decree  of 
the  Latrocinium,  there  was  a  general  retractation  at  Chalcedon  of 
what  had  been  done. 


THE    COUNCIL    OF   CIIALCEDON.  211 

God,  administering  her  decrees  and  laws  in  free 
and  representative  assemblies,  yet  she  is  not 
such  a  denwci-acy  that  a  simple  numerical  ma- 
jority at  any  time  overrules  and  puts  down  a 
minority.  Three  hundred  and  fifty-five  bishops 
are  a  majority  of  Chalcedon's  five  hundred  and 
twenty,  but  it  is  the  fact  of  subsequent  recep- 
tion by  the  body  of  Christ  throughout  the 
world  which  determines  for  us  the  authority  of 
this  assembly  as  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  speaking  in  the  Name  of  the  Lord.  Great 
synods  have  met  where  Catholics  were  in  a  min- 
ority, but  the  faith  once  for  all  delivered  was 
in  the  hearts  of  that  minority,  and  the  Church 
by  a  practically  unanimous  consent  has  so  de- 
cided.* 

*  The  synod's  address  to  the  Emperor  (Hard.,  Part  III.,  torn,  ii.) 
is  of  course  a  most  important  statement  of  their  aims  and  their 
proceedings.  It  is  too  long  to  be  quoted  in  full,  but  some  lead- 
ing points  may  be  indicated.  "  The  Creed  indeed  suffices  for  the 
faithful,  but  we  must  oppose  those  who  try  to  pervert  the  truth. 
If  all  were  content  with  the  faith  as  already  set  forth,  the  children 
of  the  Church  would  be  satisfied  with  the  ancient  symbol  of  it. 
But  many  are  wandering  from  the  right  way,  and  it  is  necessary 
for  us  to  point  out  their  deviations,  not  adding  anything  new,  as 
if  the  faith  were  defective,  but  enunciating  the  trutli  against  those 
innovators.  Thus,  at  Nice  they  only  said,  '  We  believe  in  the 
Holy  Ghost;'  and  that  set  forth  the  faith.  But  for  its  defence 
it  was  afterward  necessary  to  add,  'the  Lord  God  proceeding 
from  the  Father.'  So  with  respect  to  the  Incarnation.  The 
Creed  said,  '  He  descended,   and  was  incarnate,  and  was  made 


212  THE   COUNCIL    OF  CHALCEDON. 


II.   The  ChurcJis  Lazv. 

But  the  Church  has  a  law,  as  well  as  a  faith. 
Without  that  law  she  would  be  nothing  more 
than  one  religious  party-  among  many.  So  we 
come  to  that  with  which  the  synod  opened,  viz., 
the  matter  of  Dioscorus,  Patriarch  of  Alex- 
andria, second  bishop  in  Christendom.  This 
one  case  seems  to  decide,  so  far  as  Chalcedon 
is  concerned,  one  of  the  great  questions  which 
the  Church  Club  has  proposed  for  its  study, 
sc,  the  character  and  constitution  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church.  For  here  is  not  a  voluntary  asso- 
ciation of  men  of  similar  convictions  and  pref- 
erences, withdrawing  from  association  with 
one  of  another  mind,  "  reading  him  out  of  the 
party."  No ;  as  distinctly  as  any  civil  govern- 
ment, making  its  own  laws,  enforces  obedience 


man.'  But  these  clear  statements  of  the  faith  were  misconstrued, 
through  the  adversary  of  all  truth,  by  Nestorius.  Therefore  our 
fathers  set  forth  the  same  faith  more  clearly,  '  And  was  incarnate 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  Virgin  Mary.'  So  speak  Basil  the 
Great,  Damasus  of  Rome,  and  those  who  met  at  Sardica^  Con- 
stantinople, and  Ephesus. 

"  Let  none  then  find  fault  with  us  for  putting  forth  the  letter  of 
the  wonderful  Bishop  of  Rome  [not  recognized  as  an  infallible 
judge]  as  a  novelty,  but  let  them  refute  it,  if  it  be  not  in  agree- 
ment with  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  the  fathers  of  the  Church,  and 
the  Nicene  faith." 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  CHALCEDON.  213 

to  those  laws  by  suitable  penalties,  and  cannot 
otherwise  exist  as  an  organized  society,  so  dis- 
tinctly is  Dioscorus  cut  off  from  the  Church, 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  not,  explicitly,  because 
his  principles  are  incompatible  with  those  of 
the  majority,  but  because  he  has  violated  the 
fundamental  constitution  and  authority  of  the 
Divine  commonwealth  in  which  he  holds  high 
office,  and  persists  in  his  rebellion  against  it.     1 
will  quote  the  very  words  of  the  decree  (Hard., 
ii.,  378),  "  The  holy  and  great  and  Oecumenical 
synod  to  Dioscorus :    On  account  of  thy  con- 
tempt of  the  sacred  canons,  and  thy  disobedience 
to  the  synod,  inasmuch  as,  besides  thy  other  of- 
fences, thou  didst  not  appear,  even  when  sum- 
moned the  third  time  according  to  the  sacred 
canons,  know  then  that  thou  hast  been  deposed 
from    thy  bishopric   by  the    holy   and    univer- 
sal synod,  and  deprived  of  all  spiritual  func- 
tions."    Here  is  a  formal  deposition  by  Divine 
authority.     Behind  it  lies  the  ground  of  action, 
sc,  that  by  refusing  to  appear  he  justified  or 
pleaded  guilty  to  his  pretended  deposition  of 
S.  Flavian  of  Constantinople,  his  own  receiv- 
ing to  communion  the  excommunicated  heretic 
Eutyches,  his  excommunicating  S.  Leo  of  Rome, 
his   suppression  of   Leo's  letter  to  the  Latro- 
cinium,  and  the  charges  of  violence,  robbery, 
and  the  like,  which  came  from  Alexandria. 


214  THE   COUNCIL    OF  CHALCEDON. 

The  last  work  of  the  synod  of  Chalcedon  was 
the  enacting  of  laws  for  the  well-being  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  And,  again,  as  in  the  matter 
of  Dioscorus,  the  Catholic  Church  claims  to  be 
an  organized  kingdom  in  this  world,  and  not 
merely  an  ideal  society,  a  collection  of  religious 
sentiments  in  which  men  of  like  minds  unite. 
This  Oecumenical  synod  claims  the  right  to 
legislate  for  all  Christian  people  in  the  name  of 
God ;  right,  as  complete  and  full  as  that  of  the 
Roman  empire  or  any  human  commonwealth 
whatsoever,  to  demand  outward  obedience; 
and  the  right,  as  Divine,  to  require  imvard  sub- 
mission as  part  of  our  duty  to  God  as  well  as  to 
man ;  the  authority,  finally,  which  no  merely 
ideal  society  possesses,  to  exercise  spiritual  dis- 
cipline, which  God  binds  in  heaven,  even,  in  the 
extreme  case  of  Dioscorus,  to  expel  from  the 
kingdom  of  God  on  earth. 

Let  me  not  be  misunderstood.  The  king- 
dom of  God  is,  indeed,  "  within  us,"  because  of 
the  unhesitating  submission  which  a  loving  will 
renders  to  the  Father  of  us  all.  But  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  also  adove  us,  and  outside  of  us, 
because  our  Avill  is  surrendered  to  God  Who  is 
above  us,  an"d  without  us,  as  well  as  within  us. 

I  mean  that  God  has  His  representatives, 
His  agents.  His  earthly  means  for  our  redemp- 
tion.    And  loving  acceptance  of  these  is  loving 


THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON.  21$ 

submission  to  Him.  To  speak  of  bowing  to  none 
but  God  is  true,  if  we  have  in  mind  our  motive  ; 
it  is  false  if  we  are  speaking  of  the  visible 
kingdom  of  God,  in  which  He  places  His  au- 
thority. His  means  for  our  redemption.  In 
that  kingdom,  he  who  bows  to  none  but  God 
is  only  a  lawless  rebel  against  His  Almighty 
Father. 

Examples  of  these  twenty-eight  canons  will 
confirm  what  has  been  said  of  them.  First,  pre- 
vious canons,  the  common  law  of  the  Church  of 
all  ages,  were  re-enacted.  Next,  special  evils 
demanded  special  laws.  If  bishops  or  other 
clergy  should  buy  or  sell  sacred  offices  they 
must  be  deposed.  Laymen  convicted  of  that 
great  sin  of  simony  must  be  excommunicated. 
Clergy  must  not  engage  in  worldly  business 
for  money-making.  They  must  not  serve  in 
military  affairs.  They  must  not  go  to  law  with 
one  another,  but  must  lay  their  case  before  the 
bishop,  or  arbitrators  under  his  advice. 

If  bishops  were  free  within  their  own  juris- 
diction (canon  17)  yet  they  were  bound  by  the 
common  law  and  custom  of  their  province  ;  but 
an  appeal  from  the  metropolitan  to  a  wider 
synod  of  the  Church  was  provided,  and  when- 
ever a  General  Council  should  meet,  an  appeal 
to  that  body  was  open  (which  Luther  used  at 
Wittenberg,  November  28,  15 18).  Chalcedon  it- 


2l6  THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDONY. 

self  gives  us  examples  of  such  appeals,  all  based 
on  the  final  authority  of  the  supreme  court  of 
the  Christian  commonwealth  on  earth. 

Finally  there  remains  the  28th  canon  of  Chal- 
cedon,*  against  which  Leo  of  Rome  made  such 
energetic  protest.  See  how  this  supreme  leg- 
islature proceeds  in  ordering  the  kingdom  of 
God.  "  As  in  all  things  we  follow  the  ordi- 
nances  of  the  holy  fathers,  and  know  the  re- 
cently read  canon  of  the  one  hundred  and  fifty 
bishops  [the  Second  (Ecumenical  Synod,  that 
at  Constantinople,  whose  third  canon  gives  the 
primacy  of  honor  (ra  irpecr^ela  r?}?  Tt/iii]<;),  after 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  to  him  of  Constantinople], 
so  do  we  decree  the  same  in  regard  to  the 
privileges  of  the  most  holy  Church  of  Constan- 
tinople. Rightly  have  the  fathers  conceded  to 
the  see  of  old  Rome  its  privileges  on  account 
of  its  character  as  the  imperial  city,  and  moyed 
by  the  same  considerations  the  one  hundred 
and  fifty  bishops  awarded  equal  prerogatives 
{ra  'iaa  Trpea^eia)  to  the  most  holy  city  of  new 
Rome,"  etc.  f     It  seems   to   me  that  both  the 

*  Dr.  Bright's  Notes  on  the  Canons  of  the  First  Four  Gen- 
eral Councils,  18S2,  may  be  consulted  for  a  condensed  but  clear 
history  and  explanation  of  this  canon. 

f  Tlie  9th  and  17th  canons,  against  which  Leo  entered  no  pro- 
test, make  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  the  ultimate  court  of 
appeal,  at  least  for  the  Eastern  Church,  without  any  reference 
whatever  to  a  higher  court  at  Rome.      Tiiis   sliould  be  compared 


THE   COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON.  217 

canon  and  the  protest  against  it  are  equally 
strong  against  the  modern  ultramontane  claim 
that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  supreme  over  the 
whole  Church,  putting  down  and  setting  up, 
c.s:.,  here  in  the  United  States. 

1.  For  first,  this  OEcumenical  synod,  despite 
Leo's  protest,  claims  and  exercises  that  juris- 
diction. It  is  certainly  true,  as  Leo  said,  that 
it  was  not  civil  dignity,  but  apostolical  origin, 
which  gave  recognized  precedence  and  in- 
fluence in  the  Church.  Thus  Canterbury  out- 
ranks London  to-day  for  similar  reasons.  But 
nevertheless  the  synod  assigns  the  reason 
which  had  weight  with  it  in  a  matter  where  it 
claims  the  right  to  decide. 

2.  And  in  the  next  place,  the  absence  of  any 
reference  to  a  supremacy  at  Rome,  which,  if 
it  existed,  would  overrule  everything  else,  is 
equivalent  to  a  denial  of  any  such  supremacy. 
In  fact,  after  all  the  complimentary  words 
which  were  addressed  to  the  great  patriarch  of 
the  West,  the  Churches  of  Eastern  Christen- 
dom simply  ignored  his  protests  against  their 
action,  and  carried  into  execution  this  famous 
28th    canon   of  Chalcedon.      If   actions   speak 

with  the  fashion  very  natural  at  that  day,  of  making  an  appeal  to 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  a  fashion  illustrated  at  Chalcedon  by  certain 
persons  from  Alexandria  who  appeared  in  the  synod  witli  an  ap- 
peal to  it  and  to  Leo  against  the  violence  of  Uioscorus. 


2l8      THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON. 

louder  than  words,  there  could  not  possibly  be 
a  more  explicit  denial  of  any  claims  to  suprem- 
acy which  might  be  beginning  to  be  heard 
from  Rome. 

3.  Now  let  us  consider  Leo's  protests,  Avhich 
I  will  not  weary  you  by  reading.  But  does 
even  he  claim  an  ultramontane  supremacy  ? 
No  such  thing ;  the  times  were  not  ripe  for  that. 
Such  a  monstrous  usurpation  within  the  Catho- 
lic Church  was  necessarily  the  growth  of  cen- 
turies. And  the  great  Leo  was  not  an  Innocent 
in.  nor  a  Gregory  VII.  Leo  objects,  first,  to 
the  grounds  on  which  the  decision  of  the  synod 
rests,  sc,  the  preponderance  of  the  imperial 
metropolis,  the  civil  rank  of  Constantinople. 
Leo  says,  and  very  properly,  that  the  ground 
of  rank  in  the  Church  is  the  apostolical  ori- 
gin of  the  see.  And  what  then  ?  Antioch  was 
founded  by  S.  Peter ;  Alexandria  is  the  see  of 
S.  Mark,  S.  Peter's  disciple  ;  Anatolius  of  Con- 
stantinople, says  S.  Leo,  must  be  satisfied  with 
being  Bishop  of  the  Imperial  city  ;  he  cannot 
make  it  an  apostolical  see.  S.  Leo,  no  doubt, 
had  a  strong  point  of  objection  there.  Again, 
he  refuses  his  consent  to  the  canon  because  it 
contravenes,  as  he  thinks,  the  6th  canon  of 
Nice.  The  fathers  of  Chalcedon  might  have 
replied  to  that,  that  they  had  no  such  intention 
whatever ;  that  they  onl}^  met  new  conditions 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  CHALCEDON.  219 

with  new  regulations,  in  matters  which  were 
not  Divinely  settled  to  remain  unchanged  until 
the  world's  end.  S.  Leo  was  a  very  Bourbon 
of  a  conservative,  just  then.  He  asserted  that 
these  external  regulations  of  Church  order  were 
settled  at  Nice  by  such  an  inspiration  that  they 
must  endure  as  long  as  time  shall  last.  With- 
out reply,  however,  the  Eastern  Church  simply 
went  on  to  settle  her  own  affairs  in  her  own 
way.  And  in  the  course  of  time,  Rome  had  to 
give  up,  and  yield  the  disputed  point. 

This  question  of  the  rank  of  Constantinople 
in  the  Catholic  Church,  and  that  other  question 
of  the  primacy  of  old  Rome,  do  not  concern 
us  as  practical   matters  to-day.     Rome  to-day 
makes    wholly   different   claims,  and   Anglican 
Catholics  may  see  most  plainly  that  at  Chalce- 
don,  where  the  whole  Church  was  represented 
400  years  after  the  Lord's  Resurrection,  there 
was  no  claim,  much  less  was  there  any  recogni- 
tion, of  a  Supreme  Vicar  of  Christ  on  earth, 
whom   all   Christians    must   obey    in    Christ's 
stead,  because  all  authority  and  jurisdiction  in 
the  Church  are  derived  from  Him,  and  his  of- 
ficial utterances  are  independent  of  any    con- 
sent of  the  Catholic  Church.*    ^ 

*  Leo  of  Rome  certainly  claimed,  and  the  synod  of  Chalcedon 
in  words  at  least,  admitted  a  presidency  of  the  See  of  S.  Peter 
over  the  whole  Church,  but  a  presidency  of  very  undefined  limits, 


2  20  THE   COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON. 


IV.  What  has  Chalcedon  Done  for  Us? 

I.  It  is  time  to  bring  to  a  close  a  lecture 
which  is  all  too  brief  for  the  great  subject  as- 
signed to  it.  Let  us  inquire,  even  though  the 
answer  involves  some  repetition  of  what  I  have 
said,  zvJiat  Chalcedon  lias  done  for  lis  all,  for  all 
ages  of  the  Catholic  Church.  But  I  must  first 
anticipate  a  cavil,  which  is  not  likely  to  come 
from  you,  gentlemen,  but  which  we  are  only  too 
likely  to  hear  in  what  is  called  the  "  religious 
world,"  sc.,  that  disputatious  Christians  of  the 
East  and  in  a  very  corrupted  Church,  were  en- 
gaged in  needless  disputations  and  over-subtle 
controversies  about  minute  or  inscrutable  ques- 
tions, instead  of  being  zealous  for  what  is  called 
"  simple  faith  in  Jesus  Christ."  I  think  we 
have  seen  that  the  Church  was  not  adding 
to  the  faith,  was  not  making  subtle  distinc- 
tions which  involved  no  fundamental  differ- 
ence.    Nor  was  she   arbitrarily  drawing  up  a 

limits  so  undefined  that  conflict  was  sure  to  arise  such  as  only 
charity  could  appease.  Such  a  presidency  over  the  wide-spread 
colonial  churches  of  the  Anglican  communion,  and  still  more  over 
bishops  among  the  heatlien,  is  exercised  and  admitted  with  re- 
spect to  the  See  of  Canterbury.  But  such  a  presidency  is  funda- 
mentally different  from  that  autocracy  which  is  claimed  as  Divine, 
and  imposed  as  such  upon  the  whole  Roman  Communion  to-day. 
(See  Appendix,  "  Claims  of  the  Roman  See.") 


THE   COUNCIL    OF  CHALCEDON.  221 

new  confession  of  the  faith  which  all  had,  in 
order  to  refine  more  minutely  upon  it,  and  to 
fix  more  narrowly  the  boundary  fences  of  the 
Christian  fold.* 

But  when  the  nature  of  her  Divine  Lord,  the 
very  ground  of  our  faith  in  Him,  because  it  is 
the  ground  of  His  Work  for  us,  and  our  way 
of  approach  to  God  through  Him,  when  this 
was  ignorantly  or  perversely  misrepresented, 
it  became  the  Church's  first  duty  to  her  unseen 
head,  it  was  the  very  condition  of  her  con- 
tinued life  in  this  world,  that  she  should,  at  any 
cost,  testify  to  the  truth  which  she  had  always 
been  teaching.f 

*  It  was  the  Eutychians  who  took  the  position  of  "  advanced 
liberals."  See  the  petition  of  their  monks  to  the  emperor  (Hefeie, 
p.  235).  "  Everything  is  in  confusion  through  self-seeking  and 
the  lack  of  brotherly  love — Jews  and  heathen  liave  peace,  but 
Christians  are  in  conflict  with  one  another— The  emperors  ought 
to  prevent  the  outbreak  of  a  schism— all  disturbances  should 
cease,  particularly  the  enforcement  of  subscriptions  and  persecu- 
tions, etc." 

f  For  a  fuller  understanding  of  what  Chalcedon  has  done  for 
us  in  this  respect,  one  may  make  a  careful  study  of  Art.  IV.  in 
"Pearson  on  the  Creed,"  "  Suffered  under  Pontius  Tilate."  Euty- 
chianism  denied  also,  at  least  implicitly,  the  true  resurrection  and 
restoration  of  men,  the  coming  again  of  the  Son  of  Man  to  judge 
the  quick  and  the  dead.  S.  Leo,  witli  his  clear  insight  and  prac- 
tical sagacity  respecting  the  meaning  and  results  of  what  might 
seem  to  many  obscure  or  indifferent,  again  and  again  insists  on 
this.  See  the  35th  Ep.,  to  Bishop  Julian  ;  and  again,  in  Ep.  59, 
to  the  clergy  and  people  of   Constantinople,  he   writes  :      "  They 


222  THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON. 

If  the  creed  of  Nice  and  Constantinople  were 
perverted  contrary  to  her  intention  as  it  was 
perverted  then,*  and,  I  will  add,  as  it  is  per- 
verted to-day,  the  Catholic  Church,  like  the 
Supreme  Court  of  these  United  States  in  an- 
other sphere,  must  define  the  meaning  of  that 
creed  more  strictly,  and  more  fully  express  the 
meaning  of  those  who  first  enunciated  it. 

This,  then,  is  the  great  and  permanent  work 
of  Chalcedon,  to  enable  every  well-taught 
Christian  child  to  say  what  he  means  when  he 
declares  his  belief  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  and 
to  perfect  an  unassailable  bulwark  against  mul- 

who  deny  that  Christ  has  the  nature  of  our  human  flesh,  both 
contradict  the  Gospel  and  deny  the  Creed.  They  do  not  stand 
fast  in  the  truth  of  our  Lord's  Passion,  nor  of  His  Resurrection. 
For  both  of  these  are  made  void  (vaa/ahtr),  if  we  do  not  believe 
tliat  He  possesses  the  flesh  of  our  humanity.  .  .  .  Consider 
again,  the  Holy  Eucharist.  In  that  mystical  distribution  of  spirit- 
ual nourishment,  this  is  given,  this  is  received  ;  that  receiving  the 
virtue  of  the  bread  from  heaven,  we  may  be  converted  (transea- 
mus),  into  the  flesh  of  Him  Who  was  made  of  our  flesh.  .  . 
Consider,  also,  the  sacrament  of  Holy  Baptism,  the  condition  of 
our  new  nature,  wherein  is  laid  aside  not  the  garment  of  true 
flesh,  but  the  old  corruption,  that  we  may  be  made  the  Body  of 
Christ"  (wherein  I  was  made  a  member  of  Christ,  etc.),  "be- 
cause Christ  also  possesses  a  human  Body." 

*  See  Eutyches'  letter  to  S.  Leo,  after  his  excommunicaticm 
(Ep.  xxi.,  Leonis  Epist.),  in  which  he  professes  to  believe  the 
creed  of  Nice  and  Constantinople,  and  accepts  the  decree  of 
Ephesus  (against  Nestorius),  and  yet  we  know  that  he  radically 
denied  the  work  of  Christ  for  our  salvation. 


THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON.  2.2.'^^ 

titudinoLis  attacks  on  the  Person  of  that  adora- 
ble Saviour.  ^ 

II.  There  is  an  opposite  mistake  respecting 
the  work  of  the  synod,  which  seems  to  require 
a  word  because  it  has  a  sound  of  great  Hber- 
aHty.  Admitting  that  nothing  was  added  as 
essential  to  the  faith,  granting  that  no  new  arti- 
cles were  required  to  be  believed  by  every 
Christian  man,  did  the  Chalcedonian  decree 
"  establish  the  Nicene  Creed  as  the  sole  and 
sufficient  exposition  of  the  Christian  faith  ? " 
Did  it  so  settle  every  point  of  faith,  that  noth- 
ing further  need  be  done  until  the  world's 
end?  Precisely  tJie  contrary.  That  Chalcedonian 
decree,  like  the  Athanasian  Creed,  so  called, 
which  traverses  the  same  ground,  interprets 
more  clearly  the  meaning  of  a  certain  part,  and 
only  a  certain  part  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  pre- 
vents possible  mistake  respecting  that  part,  the 
part  which  concerns  our  Lord  Himself,  and 
corrects  actually  existing  misapprehension. 
This  needed  to  be  done,  and  it  was  done.  It 
is  precisely  what  would  equally  be  needed  to- 
day, respecting  the  latter  part  of  that  creed,  if 
the  whole  Catholic  Church  could  once  more 
meet  in  synod,  or  if  the  Lambeth  invitation  to 

*  See  Hooker's  Ecclesiastical  Polity,   V.   HV.    lo  ;  quoted  in 
Church  Club  Lectures  for  1891,  p.  13. 


224  THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON. 

unity  were  seriously  considered  and  approved 
by  our  separated  Christian  brethren. 

III.  And  if,  in  the  next  place,  any  one  mis- 
understand, or  appreciate  only  in  part,  the 
grounds  on  which  our  faith  rests,  and  suggest 
that  our  creed  is  the  expression  only  of  what  is 
called  "  Christian  consciousness,"  or  that  it  is 
the  agreement  of  a  numerical  majority  of  Chris- 
tians upon  what  they  understand  the  Holy 
Scriptures  to  mean,  and  upon  what  the  truth 
is,  we  are  now  able  to  answer :  Yes  ;  this  per- 
haps ;  but  somctJiing  more ;  something  more 
fundamental  than  any  inward  convictions  of 
one  or  many.  Chalcedon's  decree  truly  repre- 
sents the  inspired  judgment  of  the  Body  of 
Christ,  of  the  enduring  organ  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  possessor  of  the  promised  Com- 
forter Who  guides  into  all  truth.  That  author- 
itative voice  does  not  come  down  to  us  faintly 
from  a  remote  antiquity.  It  is  speaking  to-day. 
Greek  Catholic,  Roman  Catholic,  Anglican 
Catholic,  will  with  one  voice  answer  the  ques- 
tion. What  think  ye  of  Christ?  and  the  great 
evangelical  Protestant  bodies  will  echo  the 
answer  saying :  "  He  is  all  that  man  is,  all  that 
God  is,  one  Christ :  truly,  perfectly,  indivisi- 
bly,  distinctly,  one  Christ,  in  those  two  nat- 
ures." 

This  is  what  Chalcedon  has  done  for  us. 


THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON.  22  5 

IV.  And  lastly,  Chalcedon,  with  this  year's 
course  of  lectures  in  general,  is,  I  think,  throw- 
ing some  light  upon  the  first  aim  of  your  efforts, 
gentlemen,  as  stated  five  years  ago,  sc,  to  main- 
tain that  the  Christian  faith  is  a  truth,  positive, 
and  independent  of  our  fluctuating  opinions ; 
that  Christian  institutions  exist,  and  have  their 
inestimable  value,  I  will  not  say  altogether,  but 
very  largely,  for  the  preservation  and  propa- 
gation of  that  faith,  which  faith  expresses  the 
means  adopted  by  a  God  of  love  and  mercy 
for  our  rescue  from  sin  and  miser}^  since  "  there 
is  none  other  Name  under  heaven  given  among 
men,  whereb}'  we  can  be  saved,"  but  only  that 
Name  whose  meaning  we  have  learned  to  know. 
True  Christian  union  is  a  union  in  that  one  faith. 
For  if  hesitating  or  uncertain  answer  be  given 
to  the  question,  "  Who  is  Christ,"  the  inward 
faith  is  uncertain  or  hesitating,  and  so  no  unity 
of  faith  is  possible.  If  false  answer  be  given. 
He  is  not  found  who  sa3's  that  He  is  "  the 
Way,  and  the  Truth,  and  the  Life,"  although 
He  may  find  those  who  have  failed  to  find 
Him.  And  union,  without  unity  oi  one  faith,  is 
the  union  of  a  Babel  of  sects,  whose  distracted 
and  distracting  voices  fill  the  ear,  but  confuse 
the  soul.  Such  is  not  the  unity  of  the  heavenly 
Jerusalem,  where  from  many  voices  in  all  earth's 
varied  tongues,  ascends  one  Gloria  in  Excelsis, 
15 


226  THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDOM. 

to  God,  and  to  the  Lamb  Who  is  in  the  midst 
of  the  throne  of  God. 

This  union  lies  deeper  than  that  of  a  creed. 
Creeds  are  but  symbols,  whose  meaning,  as  we 
have  seen,  is  perverted  by  heretical  perversity. 
Higher  and  deeper  than  symbols,  in  the  life  of 
the  Church  the  very  life  itself,  is  the  Spirit  of 
God,  making  men  to  be  of  one  mind  in  God's 
house,  not  only  through  charity,  but  through 
common  faith  respecting  what  they  mean  when 
they  utter  the  creed. 

And  if  this  has  been  done  at  Ephesus  and 
Chalcedon,  for  the  great  question  of  the  Lord's 
Person,  it  still  remains  to  be  done,  as  I  have 
intimated,  respecting  the  latter  part  of  the  same 
creed,  sc,  the  Holy  Ghost  who  spake  by  the 
prophets,  the  one.  Holy,  Catholic,  and  Apostolic 
Church,  the  one  baptism  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  life 
everlasting. 

We  may  not  doubt  what  would  be  the  de- 
cision of  a  united  council  of  the  whole  Catholic 
Church,  if  it  should  please  God  to  give  us  such 
a  synod.  But  what  security  it  would  give  to 
fluctuating  faith !  And  what  a  call  it  would 
give  to  the  wanderers  who  "  are  dispersed 
abroad  to  return,  and  with  us  be  saved  through 
Christ  forever ! " 

But,  meanwhile,  we,  for  our  own    part,  can 


THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDON.  22/ 

only  cling  with  fixed  purpose  of  heart  to  what 
we  know  that  they  intended  who  gave  us  those 
last  articles  of  our  creed,  and,  in  trying  to  make 
them  a  reality  for  ourselves,  commend  them  to 
those  who  have  lost  their  meaning,  even  if  they 
accept  the  words. 

For  it  is  the  unity  of  faith,  and  hope,  and 
love,  for  which  we  pray  with  undoubting  trust 
in  God's  willingness  to  grant  it.  And  union, 
I  repeat  it,  is  not  unity.  The  winds  of  change- 
ful emotion,  the  storms  proceeding  from  the 
world's  restless  sea,  may  sweep  along  the  shores 
of  that  solid  land  where  the  Church  of  God  is 
building,  and  those  winds  may  pile  up  the  sand- 
hills in  disconnected  heaps  of  disunited  atoms. 
But  the  breezes  from  another  quarter  will  pres- 
ently scatter  them,  and  pile  them  up  again  in 
other  heaps.  They  can  never  be  the  solid  rock 
on  which  the  Church  of  God  is  slowly  rising 
up  in  everlasting  stateliness. 

Those  sand-hills  also,  in  their  disconnected 
and  changeful  union,  can  never  be  the  fertile 
soil  out  of  which  shall  grow  the  glorious  tree 
whose  branches  spread  far  and  wide  their  re- 
freshing shade  and  bear  fruit  for  the  healing 
of  the  nations.  For  the  life  of  that  tree  is  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  the  sign  of  that  life  is  unity 
not  imion  of  its  leafy  boughs.  The  unity,  I 
mean,  oi  faith  as  well  as  of  a  creed  and  symbol 


228  THE    COUNCIL    OF   CHALCEDOiY. 

of  the  faith  ;  one  love,  one  hope,  one  faith,  in 
every  living  leaf  of  that  mystic  tree,  because 
one  life-giving  Spirit  is  in  each  and  in  all. 

Collect.  Grant,  we  beseech  Thee,  O  Lord 
our  God,  that  we  may  apprehend  both  parts  of 
the  one  mystery  of  Thy  Son's  Incarnation,  and 
adore  one  Christ  very  God  and  very  Man, 
neither  divided  from  our  nature,  nor  separated 
from  Thine  Essence  ;  through  the  same  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord  Who  liveth  and  reigneth  with 
Thee,  in  the  unity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  one  God 
for  ever  and  ever.     Amen, 


APPENDIX. 

The  Roman  See  and  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon, 

If,  with  Dr.  Bright  (Histor>'  of  the  Church,  a.d.  313-451, 
p.  374),  we  distinguish  three  stages  in  the  development  of 
the  papal  claims,  we  shall  tind,  first,  the  primacy  (ra  TriHirlifla 
Trjs  Ti^iTjs),  a  position  of  honor  and  influence,  like  that  of  qn 
elder  brother  in  a  well-ordered  family,  a  station  for  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  which  no  well-instructed  Christian  would  dispute, 
and  which  is  manifestly  his  from  the  apostolic  age.  Later, 
we  find  the  supremacy  claimed,  sc,  that  by  Divine  right  the 
assent  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  requisite  to  give  binding  au- 
thority to  any  decree  respecting  faith  or  discipline  in  the 
Catholic  Church,  or  any  part  thereof.  This  is  what  Leo 
seems  to  claim  in  the  age  of  Chalcedon,  and  which  the  con- 
ditions of  the  age  did  so  much  to  promote.  It  is  needless  to 
add  that  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  recognized  no  such  claim. 
In  fact,  we  have  seen  that  the  synod  proceeded  to  enact  its 
decree  respecting  most  fundamental  questions  of  order  and 
discipline  in  the  Eastern  patriarchates,  despite  the  protest  and 
withdrawal  of  the  papal  legates,  with  no  other  dissentient 
voice,  and  that  that  action  was  never  formally  retracted.  If 
the  supremacy  existed — which  was  not  the  case— this  action 
would  have  been  a  revolt  against  it  of  all  parts  of  the  Church 
except  the  great  patriarchate  of  the  West. 

Lastly,  the  final  step  of  papal  development  is  an  autocracy, 
like  that  of  a  czar,  or  an  absolute  emperor,  which  is  formu- 


230  APPENDIX. 

lated  by  the  Vatican  decree  of  1870,*  making  the  pope  sole 
legislator,  judge,  and  executive  in  the  Roman  Church,  so  far 
that  he  is  the  source  of  all  authority  in  these  three  essential 
parts  of  government  in  the  kmgdom  of  God.  His  decree,  in 
either  of  these  three  relations,  independently  of  any  assent  on 
the  part  of  the  Church,  is  absolutely  irreformable,  because  in- 
fallible.! 

Infallibility  in  faith  and  morals  is  of  course  essential  to 
such  a  claim. 

A  careful  comparison  of  the  proceedings  at  Chabedon 
with  the  letters  of  Leo  and  other  documents  connected  with 
the  council,  will,  I  think,  convince  every  candid  person  that 
no  such  autocracy  was  claimed,  much  less  recognized,  by  any 
one  in  the  age  of  Chalcedon. 

For  the  inspection  cf  those  who  have  not  the  leisure  to  ex- 
amine for  themselves,  I  have  collected,  as  impartially  as  I  am 
able,   the   principal   passages   connected   with   this   subject. 


*  "If,  then,  any  shall  say  that  the  Roman  pontiff  has  the  office 
merely  of  inspection  or  direction  [which  Leo  claimed],  but  not 
full  and  supreme  power  of  jurisdiction  over  the  universal  Church, 
not  only  in  things  which  belong  to  faith  and  morals,  but  also  in 
those  which  relate  to  the  government  and  discipline  of  the  Church 
spread  throughout  the  world,  or  assert  that  he  possesses  only  the 
chief  part  and  not  the  entire  fulness  of  the  supreme  power :  let 
him  be  anathema."  (3d  Vatican  decree  on  the  constitution  of  the 
Church. ) 

\  "  We  teach  and  define  that  it  is  a  dogma  divinely  revealed 
that  the  Roman  pontiff,  when  lie  speaks  ex  cathedra  ...  is 
possessed  of  that  infallibility  with  which  the  Divine  Redeemer 
willed  that  His  Church  should  be  endowed  for  defining  doctrine 
concerning  faith  or  morals ;  and  that  therefore,  such  definitions  of 
the  Roman  pontiff  are  irreformable  of  themselves,  and  not  from 
the  consent  of  the  Church."     (4th  Vatican  decree.) 


THE   ROMAN  SEE.  23 1 

Hastily  as  it  is  done,  I  have  not  chanced  to  find  the  same 
elsewhere  undertaken, 

1.  In  A.D.  381,  the  third  canon  of  the  CEcumenical  synod 
at  Constantinople  gives  the  "  primacy  of  honor  "  (not  of  au- 
thority) to  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  after  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  "  because  that  Constantinople  is  New  Rome."  This 
canon  was  recognized  as  bmding  in  the  Eastern  patriarchates, 
though  it  never  received  the  assent  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 
So  It  IS  plain  that  either  there  was  no  papal  supremacy  known, 
or  else  it  was  openly  defied.  Leo's  105th  and  io6th  Epistles 
show  us  how  the  matter  stood  in  his  estimation.  To  the 
Empress  Pulcheria  he  writes :  "  In  order  that  the  decrees  of 
the  venerable  fathers  [of  Nice]  may  be  annulled  {solvanttir), 
the  consent  of  certain  bishops  [the  second  OLcumenical  syn- 
od], is  produced,  to  which  subsequent  years  have  given  no 
effect."  That  is,  the  canon  had  been  ignored  in  the  West- 
ern Church.  More  than  that  could  not  be  truthfully  asserted. 
Leo  did  not  mean  that  the  canon  had  not  been  carried  into 
execution. 

Similarly  he  writes  to  Anatolius,  rebuking  his  ambition, 
that  "  this  enactment  of  certain  bishops  sixty  years  before 
was  never  transmitted  by  your  predecessors  to  the  [official  ] 
knowledge  of  the  apostolic  see."  Leo  claims  supremacy; 
but  it  had  no  official  recognition  outside  of  his  own  patri- 
archate. 

2.  What  Leo  claimed  for  Rome  is  clearly  intimated  in  his 
first  letter  to  S.  Flavian  (Ep.  XXIIL).  "  For  both  the  ad- 
ministration (5iot<r;(7iy)  of  the  Church  and  the  emperor's  faith 
impose  on  us  great  anxiety  for  the  peace  of  Christendom,  in 
order  that,  dissensions  being  removed,  the  Catholic  faith  may 
be  guarded,  and  the  wanderers  recovered  and  strengthened 
by  our  authority."  It  was  his  duty,  he  said,  to  see  "  that  the 
decrees  of  the  venerable  fathers  respecting  the  faith  were  not 
violated  by  any  evil  mis-interpretation." 


2  32  APPENDIX. 

S.  Leo  evidently  regards  himself  as,  ex  officw,  "  Defender 
of  the  Faith."  But  Flavian's  reply  (Hard.  t.  ii ,  p.  4)  ask- 
ing the  Bishop  of  Rome's  aid  respecting  Eutyches,  recog- 
nizes no  supremacy.  He  understands  that  Eutyches  has 
been  writing,  that  he  made  an  appeal  to  Rome.  "  Moved 
therefore  along  with  us  on  account  of  all  these  things  that 
have  been  done  and  are  still  doing  toward  us  and  against  the 
peace  of  the  Church,  act  boldly,  as  you  are  accustomed  to  do, 
and  as  becomes  the  priestly  office.  Making  the  common  cause 
your  own,  give  your  vote  along  with  us  (av^i^r^cplaaa^ai) 
for  the  condemnation  canonically  passed  against  him,  and 
strengthen  the  faith  of  the  emperor,  etc."  So  writes  Flavian, 
evidently  not  addressing  a  supreme  ruler  of  all  Christendom. 
A  second  letter  of  Flavian  (Hard.,  p  10),  is  couched  in  the 
same  spirit :  "  We  transmit  a  lengthened  statement  in  order 
that  your  holiness,  knowing  the  whole  matter,  may  inform 
all  the  bishops  under  you  [the  Western  patriarchate]  of  his 
impiety,  lest  any  ignorantly  communicate  with  him  as  if  he 
were  orthodox." 

3.  In  A.D.  449,  the  Emperor  Theodosius  U.  summoned  an 
Oicumenical  synod  to  meet  at  Ephesus,  and  appointed  Dios- 
corus  to  preside  with  the  same  authority  as  was  exercised  or 
claimed  at  Chalcedon  by  Leo's  representatives  {tt)v  av^fvTiau 
Kui  ra  Trpf  fr/3f  la).  All  the  Eastern  patriarchates  came  as  sum- 
moned, and  Leo  was  represented  by  delegates.  Those  del- 
egates might,  silently,  by  their  action  protest  against  the 
emperor's  decree,  but  there  was  no  difficulty  regarding  the 
presidency  of  this  QEcumenical  synod  raised  on  the  part  of 
the  East.  That  is,  once  more,  the  supremacy  was  either 
non-existent,  or  openly  rejected. 

4.  In  the  first  session  of  the  synod  at  Chalcedon,  when  the 
proceedings  of  the  "endemic  "  synod  at  Constantinople  under 
Anatolius  were  read,  it  appeared  that  at  the  condemnation 
of  Eutyches  (Hard.,  p.    142),  he  said  privately  that  he  ap- 


THE  ROMAN  SEE.  233 

pealed  to  a  council  at  Rome,  adding,  "  and  to  Alexandria, 
Jerusalem,  and  Thessalonica."  See  also  his  letter  to  Leo 
(Leonis  Epist.,  XXI.) :  "  I  requested  that  those  things  might 
be  made  known  to  your  holiness,  and  that  you  might  judge 
what  seemed  good  to  you,  declaring  that  in  every  way  I  would 
follow  what  you  might  approve." 

5.  In  AD.  451,  the  Emperor  Marcian  summoned  an  (Ecu- 
menical synod  to  meet  at  Nice  fchanged  to  Chalcedon),  re- 
specting which  Leo  wrote  (Ep.  LXXXIX.)  :  "  We  thought 
that  your  clemency  would  have  been  able  to  comply  with  our 
desire,  that,  in  consideration  of  the  present  need,  you  would 
order  the  synod  to  be  deferred  to  a  more  convenient  season, 
etc."  Leo  will  send  delegates ;  but  it  is  plain  that  the  Cath- 
olic and  orthodox  emperor  does  not  recognize  a  supremacy 
in  the  Bishop  of  Rome ;  or  else  treats  it  with  great  disre- 
spect. 

6.  According  to  our  use  of  the  term,  the  imperial  commis- 
sioners and  the  senators  "  presided  "  at  Chalcedon,  "  taking 
the  chair,"  preserving  due  order,  collecting  suffrages,  and  an- 
nouncing decisions.  But  the  papal  legates  certainly  took  the 
lead  among  the  delegates,  with  a  "primacy  of  honor,"  as 
Canterbury  might  do  to-day  in  a  Lambeth  synod.  The  third 
meeting  of  the  synod  is  specially  worthy  of  notice  in  this 
respect,  because  the  commissioners  were  absent.  The  arch- 
deacon of  Constantinople  announces  the  business  which  is  to 
come  before  the  synod,  and  it  is  taken  up  in  a  sort  of  "  cab- 
inet meeting  "  when  the  president  is  absent.  That  is,  the 
Roman  legates,  as  a  sort  of  secretary  of  state  or  "  prime 
minister,"  take  the  lead  in  giving  orders.  But  they  are  fol- 
lowed in  a  similar  fashion  by  Anatolius  of  Constantinople, 
Maximus  of  Antioch,  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem,  Stephen  of  Ephe- 
sus,  etc.,  each  in  turn  giving  directions  for  the  successive 
items  of  business,  as  if  there  were  a  general  equality.  When 
Dioscorus's  sentence  is  to  be  pronounced,  the  Roman  legates 


234  APPENDIX. 

speak  it  in  the  name  of  Leo  and  Peter  as  well  as  of  the  synod, 
but  there  is  no  recognition  whatever  on  the  part  of  others  of 
the  need  of  any  special  sanction  from  Rome.  Anatolius 
(Hardouin,  p.  346)  follows  the  legates  with  the  brief  judg- 
ment, "  I  agree  with  the  apostolic  throne,  and  vote  with  it 
(iTvfi\}rr](pos)  for  the  deposition  of  Dioscorus,  because  he  has 
violated  the  canons."  Next,  Maximus  of  Antioch,  "assents 
to  the  sentence  of  the  two,  Rome  and  Constantinople,"  giving 
no  superiority  to  one  over  the  other.  And  so  with  the 
rest.  In  the  subscriptions  to  the  decree  of  deposition  the 
Roman  does  not  differ  from  the  others  ;  and  the  decree  is 
issued  in  the  name  of  the  synod  without  any  special  mention 
of  Leo.  And  when  the  degradation  of  Dioscorus  is  com- 
municated to  the  emperor  and  to  the  empress,  there  is  an 
equally  significant  absence  of  any  reference  to  Rome.  It  is 
the  synod  which  has  made  the  decree  for  violation  of  the 
canons  and,  by  his  refusing  to  answer,  an  implicit  confession 
of  offences  charged. 

7.  At  the  second  session  (Hard.,  p.  290),  after  the  creeds  of 
Nice  and  Constantinople  had  been  read  under  direction  of  the 
imperial  commission,  two  letters  of  Cyril  were  also  read, 
which  were  followed  by  Leo's  Tome.  At  the  reading  of  the 
latter  the  bishops  exclaimed,  "  This  is  the  faith  of  the  fathers ; 
the  faith  of  the  apostles.  Peter  has  spoken  by  Leo.  Cyril 
taught  this,"  etc.  They  evidently  regarded  the  see  of  Rome 
as  apostolic  through  S.  Peter. 

But  if  an  infallible  judge  was  speaking  in  the  Tome,  they 
were  egregiously  in  the  wrong  in  what  followed.  For  the 
bishops  of  Illyricum  and  Palestine  doubted  the  soundness  of 
certain  expressions  of  Leo,*  and  Cyril  was  read  again  to  jus- 

*  The  bishops  of  Palestine  were  evidently  unconscious  of  any 
infallibility  in  Leo  ;  for  they  declared  in  writing  (Hard.,  p.  402), 
"  We  all  hold  fast  by  the  faith  of  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen 


THE  ROMAN  SEE.  235 

tify  those  questionable  phrases.  The  imperial  commission 
also  appointed  four  days'  delay  in  the  matter,  and  a  private 
conference  for  the  settlement  of  doubts. 

Accordingly,  at  the  fourth  session,  they  open  with  the  words, 
"  Let  the  bishops  now  state  their  faith."  And  Anatolius  first 
replies,  "  The  epistle  of  Leo  agrees  with  the  creeds  of  Nice 
and  Constantinople,  and  with  what  was  done  at  Ephesus 
[third  CEc.  synod j,  under  Cyril,  therefore  I  have  consented 
and  subscribed  to  it."  Then  follow  Leo's  legates,  Maximus 
of  Antioch,  etc.,  etc.  There  is  no  recognition  of  any  special 
authority  possessed  by  Leo's  Tome  over  the  letters  of  Cyril 
or  other  accepted  statements  of  the  Catholic  faith.* 

8.  The  official  letter  of  the  synod  to  the  Emperor  Marcian, 
briefiy  paraphrased,  will  be  found  in  Note  on  p.  211. 

9.  Now  let  us  take  the  very  significant  epistle  in  which  the 
synod  communicates  its  decrees  to  the  great  Patriarch  of  the 

fathers  of  Nice  and  of  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  of  Constantinople, 
and  agree  with  the  decrees  of  Ephesus.  When  the  letter  of  Leo 
was  read  to  us  we  gave  our  assent  to  the  greatest  part  of  its  con- 
tents. But  some  parts  of  it  seemed  to  us  to  express  a  certain 
separation  of  the  Divine  and  human  in  Christ,  and  we  therefore 
hesitated  to  accept  them.  We  learnt,  however,  from  the  Roman 
legates  that  neither  do  they  admit  any  such  separation,  but  con- 
fess one  and  the  same  Lord  and  Son  of  God,  We  have  therefore 
assented  and  subscribed  Leo's  letter.  It  would  be  well,  however, 
if  the  legates  would  now,  for  the  good  of  the  world,  publicly  repeat 
that  explanation." 

*  Compare  with  this  the  words  used  at  the  second  session  (Hard., 
p.  274,  Imp.  Com.),  "  Let  the  patriarchs,  with  one  or  two  of  their 
brother  bishops,  retire  and  prepare  a  profession  of  the  faith."  The 
bishops  replied,  ' '  We  are  forbidden  to  draw  up  any  writings,  and 
we  need  none.  We  have  the  creeds,  confirmed  and  explained  by 
the  writings  of  S.  Athanasius,  Cyril,  Basil,  Gregory,  and  now 
again  by  Leo."     One  of  these  has  no  more  authority  than  another. 


236  APPENDIX. 

West.  (Hard.,p.  655  ;  Leonis  Epist.,  XCVIII.)  After  warm 
cortimendation  of  his  "  Tome,"  which  was  like  the  voice  of  S. 
Peter  to  them,  they  continued  :  "  Thou  indeed,  in  the  person 
of  thy  representatives,  didst  lead  the  way  (^yf/xdi/fuey),  but  the 
faithful  emperors,  for  the  sake  of  good  order,  directed  us 
(f^rjpxov).  .  .  ."  Speaking  of  Dioscorus,  the  synod  professed 
to  recognize  a  supervision  of  the  Church  Divinely  intrusted 
to  Leo.  "  He  [Dioscorus]  extended  his  madness  even 
against  thee  to  whom  the  guardianship  (rrjv  cf^vXaKrjv)  of  the 
vine  has  been  intrusted  by  the  Saviour." 

This  expression  might  mean  very  much  or  very  little. 
Their  proceedings  are  the  best  comment  on  it.  And,  after 
all,  it  is  they,  the  CEcumenical  synod,  who  have  set  forth  the 
Catholic  faith.  "  For  if,  where  two  or  three  are  gathered  in 
His  name.  He  is  in  the  midst  of  them,  how  much  rather  did 
He  make  his  own  the  work  of  five  hundred  and  twenty  priests, 
who  set  forth  the  true  faith  in  Him."  "  These  are  the  things 
which,  with  Thee  present  in  spirit  and  of  one  mind  with  us, 
we  have  accomplished." 

Then  the  synod  proceeds  to  what  could  not  please  the 
great  patriarch  so  well.  They  have  established  by  decree 
the  prevailing  custom  respecting  the  rank  and  privileges  of 
the  see  of  Constantinople.  They  have  "  confirmed  also  the 
canon  made  by  the  holy  fathers  at  Constantinople  under 
Theodosius  [2d  CEc.  synod],  that  Constantinople  has  pre- 
rogatives [not  of  honor  now,  but  of  authority,  to.  npea^da] 
after  your  most  holy  and  apostolic  throne."  To  this  are 
added  some  indefinite  compliments,  to  make  the  disagreeable 
decision  more  palatable.  "  We  were  persuaded  that,  since 
you  are  habitually  anxious  for  the  good  of  the  Church,  and 
the  beams  of  your  apostolic  rays  spread  abroad  even  to  the 
Church  at  Constantinople,  and  without  envy  you  share  your 
goods  among  the  family,"  you  would  add  your  approval  to 
our  decree. 


THE  ROMAN  SEE.  237 

S.  Leo  seems  to  have  thought  that  "  fine  words  butter  no 
parsnips."  Although  the  emperor  gave  his  approval,  and  the 
28th  canon  stood  as  the  decision  of  the  QScumenical  synod, 
and  ruled  from  that  day  on,  Leo  and  his  successors  refused 
their  assent  to  it.  Evidently,  if  Rome's  assent  was  neces- 
sary, it  was  not  valid.  Treating  it  as  valid  was  denying  the 
supremacy  of  Rome. 

Anatolius,  successor  of  the  saintly  Flavian  at  Constanti- 
nople, was  a  weak  bishop,  not  wholly  free  from  suspicion  of 
complicity  with  heresy,  and  standing  in  considerable  awe  of 
his  elder  brother.  He  wrote  (Leonis  Ep.,  CI.J  asking  Leo  to 
ratify  what  had  been  done. 

10.  Leo  was  not  the  man  to  yield  one  inch  off  of  what  he 
thought  to  be  his  rightful  claims.  If  those  claims  had  been 
those  of  the  Vatican  in  1870,  we  would  find  them  in  his  let- 
ters, without  reservation  or  mincing  of  them.  But  there  is 
no  such  thing.  Ep.  CIV.  to  the  emperor  is  his  protest  against 
what  he  calls  the  ambition  of  Anatolius,  a  vice  from  which, 
like  many  another,  he  of  Constantinople  may  not  have  been 
wholly  free,  but  which  does  not  affect  the  question  now  be- 
fore us.  "By  no  suffrages  could  he  be  assisted  against  what 
is  due  to  the  canons  of  the  fathers,  the  statutes  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  precedents  of  antiquity."  Very  conservative,  as 
usual,  is  that ;  but  new  conditions  might  be  calling  for  new 
decrees.  "  With  the  aid  of  your  piety  and  my  zealous  ap- 
proval {uvvaiveaii) ,  he  got  the  episcopate  of  so  great  a  city, 
but  he  cannot  transform  an  imperial  city  into  an  apostolic 
throne."  True  enough  and  very  much  to  the  purpose,  if 
nothing  else  were  to  be  considered  besides  the  apostolic  ori- 
gin of  churches,  like  Antioch  and  Alexandria.  "  For  the 
privileges  of  churches  established  by  the  canons  of  the  holy 
fathers  [not  conferred  by  Christ's  sole  vicar]  and  the  decrees 
of  the  venerable  Nicene  synod,  .  .  .  cannot  be  altered  for 
any  novelty.    ...    I  must  exhibit  continual  zeal  in  this  mat- 


238  APPENDIX, 

ter,  since  a  dispensation  (SioiKj^o-ts-)  has  been  intrusted  to  me, 
and  it  will  be  my  fault  if  I  connive  at  the  violation  of  canons 
made  for  the  conduct  of  the  whole  Church."  He  does  not  de- 
fine his  "  dispensation;"  but  it  might  be  inferred  that  it  was 
a  primacy  whose  duty  was  to  see  that  laws  were  obeyed.  No 
doubt  he  claimed  more  than  that. 

11.  The  letter  to  the  Empress  Pulcheria  (CV.)  is  similar, 
but  perhaps  more  definite.  "  The  assents  of  bishops  which 
are  repugnant  to  the  holy  canons  made  at  Nice,  we,  your 
pious  faith  being  joined  with  us,  declare  to  be  void  {mitiinms 
in  zrrztum),  and  by  the  authority  of  blessed  Peter  we  pro- 
nounce them  altogether  null  {gefterali  consequentes  definiti- 
07te pi'orsus  cassainiis),  in  all  ecclesiastical  causes  following 
(obsequentes)  those  laws  which  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the  three 
hundred  and  eighteen  bishops  [at  Nice]  established  for  the 
orderly  guidance  of  all  the  clergy." 

12.  Episde  CVI.  rebukes  Anatolius  on  similar  grounds,  not 
for  interfering  with  the  autocracy  of  Rome,  but  for  ordaining 
the  Bishop  of  Antioch  in  contravention  of  the  Nicene  canon. 
"  Let  not  the  see  of  Alexandria  lose  the  dignity  which  it  merits 
through  S.  Mark  the  evangelist,  the  disciple  of  S.  Peter,  and 
let  not  Antioch,  in  which  the  aposde  first  preached  the  gospel, 
lose  the  third  place.  .  .  .  Those  holy  and  venerable  fathers 
at  Nice  .  .  .  established  the  laws  of  the  Church  to  abide 
until  the  world's  end  [a  very  conservative  Roman  thought],  and 
they  live  with  us  and  throughout  the  world  in  their  decrees. 
And  if  anywhere  anything  is  presumptuously  done  otherwise 
than  as  they  decreed,  it  is  declared  null  and  void  {cassatur). 
.  .  .  No  matter  how  much  greater  the  number  of  assembled 
bishops  [at  Chalcedon],  let  them  not  presume  to  compare 
themselves  with  those  three  hundred  and  eighteen,  for  whether 
they  be  few  or  many  their  judgments  have  no  authority  if 
different  from  those  of  Nice." 

13.  Epistle  CXIV.  is  a  circular  letter  addressed,  in  com- 


THE   ROMAN  SEE.  239 

pliance  with  the  emperor's  injunction,  to  the  bishops  of  the 
synod,  in  which  S.  Leo  signifies  his  assent  to  the  doctrinal  de- 
cree. The  synod,  he  said,  was  summoned  respecting  the  faith 
alone,  by  the  command  (Trpoo-i-dynia)  of  the  emperors  and  with 
the  approbation  (cri/faiVeo-is-)  of  the  apostolic  see.  On  this  criti- 
cal occasion  Leo  makes  no  autocratic  claim,  and  the  Vatican 
of  to-day  might  find  him  a  "  mere  Gallican."  "  I  remind  you, 
most  honored  brethren,  of  the  duty  of  guarding  the  canons 
of  the  holy  fathers,  which,  by  unalterable  decree  were  set  forth 
at  Nice.  .  .  .  An  ambitious  bishop  thinks  to  establish  his 
private  attempts  in  the  name  of  the  synod,  but  powerless  and 
void  will  be  whatever  opposes  the  aforesaid  canons.  How 
reverently  the  apostolic  throne  uses  them  you  may  learn  from 
my  letters  to  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  and  that  with  the 
help  of  God,  I  am  a  guardian  of  the  fathers'  faith  and  of  the 
Catholic  canons." 

14.  Epistle  CXV.  to  the  Emperor  Marcian  does  not  even 
hint  at  autocracy.  .  .  .  After  the  synod's  work,  so  largely 
due  to  the  emperor,  in  destroying  the  main  sources  of  heresy, 
the  remains  of  it  will  be  best  obliterated  if  all  the  churches 
understand  that  the  decrees  of  the  synod  are  accepted  (dpe'orui) 
also  by  the  apostolic  see.  "  Accordingly,  I  have  cheerfully 
added  my  opinion  (yi-ii/ir;)  to  the  decree  which  confirms  the 
Catholic  faith." 

15.  The  illustrious  Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Cyrus,  had  been 
deposed  by  the  Latrocinium.  His  appeal  to  Leo  is  numbered 
LH.  in  Leo's  letters.  Was  this  an  appeal  to  a  supreme  ruler 
in  Christendom  ?  Roman  writers  themselves  are  not  sure  of 
that.  And  Theodoret's  words  speak  for  themselves  :  "  If 
Paul,  the  preacher  of  the  truth,  the  trumpet  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  betook  himself  to  S.  Peter  in  order  that  he  might  ob- 
tain from  him  an  answer  for  those  at  Antioch,  etc.  (Acts  xv. 
2),  much  rather  should  I  resort  to  the  apostolic  see  to  re- 
ceive  from  you  a  remedy  for  the  wounds  of  the  Church. 


240  APPENDIX. 

For  the  primacy  belongs  to  you  for  every  reason  (Aia  rravra 
yap  vfia)v  TO'Trpcoreveiv  apfioTTei).  Size  or  beauty  may  adorn 
cities  deprived  of  spiritual  gifts,  but  your  see  is  adorned  with 
many  excellent  gifts.  The  city  of  Rome  is  chief  and  most 
illustrious,  most  populous,  and  presides  over  the  world.  .  .  . 
But  faith  adorns  the  city  more  than  outward  splendor.  (Rom. 
i.  8.)  .  .  .  It  has,  moreover,  the  tombs  of  the  fathers  in 
common  and  teachers  of  the  truth,  sc,  Peter  and  Paul,  illu- 
minating the  souls  of  the  faithful.  This  most  blessed  and 
divine  pair  arose,  indeed,  in  the  east  and  diffused  everywhere 
their  beams ;  but  they  went  down  in  the  west,  and  from 
thence  they  now  illuminate  the  world.  These  have  rendered 
your  see  most  noble.  This  is  the  climax  of  blessing  for  you. 
But  now  God  has  again  rendered  illustrious  their  throne,  hav- 
ing set  on  it  your  holiness  shedding  forth  the  beams  of  a  right 
faith."  No  word,  as  we  perceive,  which  an  English  church- 
man might  not  employ.  Autocracy,  if  it  existed,  would  have 
been  higher  honor  than  any  mentioned  by  Theodoret.  Such 
negative  testimony  is  very  significant,  though  not  conclusive, 
respecting  Theodoret's  knowledge  of  an  autocracy. 

1 6.  Epistle  CXX.  is  addressed  by  Leo  to  Theodoret  two 
years  after  Chalcedon.  We  find  him  speaking  at  first  in  the 
very  highest  terms  of  his  own  share  in  putting  down  heresy  ; 
and  very  naturally,  too.  Was  not  his  Tome  accepted  as 
the  best  statement  of  Catholic  truth,  and  as  perfectly  har- 
monizing with  what  had  been  handed  down  in  the  Church  ? 
"  What  the  Lord  had  previously  defined  by  our  ministry,  He 
has  established  {Jirmavif)  \yf  the  irreversible  assent  of  the 
universal  brotherhood,  in  order  that  He  might  show  that  that 
truly  emanated  from  Him,  which,  first  expressed  {format urn) 
by  the  primal  see,  has  been  received  by  the  judgment  of  the 
whole  of  Christendom ;  so  that,  in  this  also,  the  members 
might  be  in  agreement  with  the  head."  (With  Christ,  or 
with  Leo  ?     Following  words  might   seem   to  point  to  the 


THE  ROMAN  SEE.  24 1 

former  as  the  head  indicated,  since  he  seems  to  recognize 
the  ultimate  authority  of  the  synod  in  matters  of  faith,  when 
he  speaks  of  those  receding  in  no  respect  from  those  rules  of 
faith  which  the  Divine  Spirit  put  forth  in  the  Chalcedonian 
synod)  .  .  .  "  since  both  in  the  epistle  of  the  apostolic  see 
which  was  confirmed  (firmatd)  by  the  assent  of  the  holy 
synod,  as  we  have  known,  so  great  testimonials  of  Divine 
authority  were  collected  as  to  remove  all  doubt ;  and  the  acts 
of  the  synod  in  which  first  the  definition  of  the  faith  was 
framed  and  then  the  aforesaid  letters  of  the  apostolic  see 
were  defended,  were  supported  by  so  many  testimonies  of 
the  fathers,  that  they  can  persuade  any  mind  which  is  capable 
of  learning  the  truth."  Certainly  this  has  not  the  tone  of  the 
Vatican  claim. 

17.  Epistle  CXXX.  is  addressed  to  the  Emperor  Marcian. 
Speaking  of  the  dissensions  and  heresy  prevailing  at  Alexan- 
dria, Leo  does  not  claim  to  be  a  supreme  and  infallible  judge, 
whatever  he  may  have  thought  himself  to  be.  He  says  : 
"  Let  the  writings  of  the  venerable  fathers  who  have  presided 
over  that  Church  be  read ;  the  words  of  S.  Athanasius,  of 
Cyril,  etc.;  .  .  .  and  if  there  be  those  who  despise  my  writ- 
ings, they  may  at  least  acquiesce  in  those  who  along  with 
us  follow  the  apostles."  Certainly  a  very  moderate  proposi- 
tion from  an  infallible  guide. 

18.  In  Epistle  CXLV.,  addressed  to  the  new  emperor,  Leo 
L,  he  says:  "  Permit  nothing  established  by  the  holy  Chalce- 
donian synod  respecting  the  Incarnation  of  our  Lord  to  be 
moved  by  any  retractation.  For  in  that  synod,  assembled 
through  the  Holy  Ghost,  all  things  were  so  established 
(Jirmata  stint)  with  so  full  and  perfect  definition,  that  noth- 
ing can  be  added  to  that  rule  of  faith  or  taken  away  from 
it,  put  forth,  as  it  was,  by  Divine  inspiration." 

Leo  goes  a  little  further  toward  papal  claims  in  his  letter 
(CLX.)  to  the  exiled  Eg>'ptian  bishops,  but  still  remains  far 
16 


242  APPENDIX. 

short  of  the  modern  Vatican  claim.  "  For  of  things  defined, 
which  the  authority  of  so  great  a  synod  and  of  the  most 
Christian  prince  has  ordained  and  fixed  unalterably  {sanxit 
auctoritas),  and  the  assent  of  the  apostolic  see  has  confirmed 
{confirinai'ii  asscnsus),  nothing  can  be  an  open  question." 

These  illustrations  may  serve  to  show  what  was  and  what 
was  not  claimed  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome  in  the  middle  of 
the  fifth  Christian  century.  And  while  the  Eastern  patri- 
archates were  shaken  to  their  base  by  unchristian  heresy, 
Alexandria  and  Jerusalem  being  its  spoil,  Antioch  and  Con- 
stantinople being  in  the  hands  of  fickle  and  time-serving 
prelates,  Rome  alone  standing  firm  on  the  rock  of  S.  Peter's 
confession,  what  wonder  that  such  a  man  as  Leo,  so  far 
ahead  of  his  generation  in  loyalty  to  Catholic  faith  and  order, 
had  a  transcendent  personal  influence  in  the  West,  and  not 
much  less  in  the  Eastern  Church  ?  Nor  does  it  seem  strange 
that  what  the  man  was  entitled  to,  should  become  the  inher- 
itance of  the  see  which  he  occupied. 

But,  comparing  these  illustrations  of  the  age  of  Chalcedon 
with  the  Vatican  decrees,  we  may  see  more  plainly  why  the 
appeal  to  history  is  heresy  in  the  eyes  of  ultramontanes,  and 
why  there  is  only  one  resort  remaining  for  an  honest  defend- 
er of  the  papacy,  sc,  a  frank  confession  that  in  a.d.  450  it 
did  not  exist,  but,  by  a  process  of  evolution,  it  has  been  "  de- 
veloped "  from  the  primacy  of  S.  Peter  to  the  autocracy  of  Leo 
XI IL  This  is  an  evolution  without  a  parallel  in  fiction,  unless 
it  be  the  reverse  process  by  which  the  spiritual  religion  of  S. 
Paul,  the  highest  aspiration  of  his  reason,  his  conscience,  and 
his  heart,  is  developed  out  of  the  craven  fears  of  a  whipped 
cur. 


Zhc  Scconb  anb  Zbiv^  Councils 
of  Constantinople, 


LECTURE  VI. 

THE    REVEREND   THEODORE  M.   RILEY,  S.T.D., 
Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  at  Nashotah  House,  Wisconsin. 

THE    SECOND    AND    THIRD    COUNCILS 
OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

From  the  hour  in  which  the  Council  of  Chal- 
ceclon  condemned  Eutychianism,  the  doctrine 
of  the  Incarnation  came  to  be  embodied  in  four 
words :  truly,  perfectly,  invisibly,  inconfusedly. 
From  that  hour  "  these  words  became  the  sum 
of  the  testimony  of  the  four  great  Councils,  the 
safeguard  against  every  wind  of  error,  from 
whatever  quarter  it  might  blow.  That  Jesus 
is  true  God,  had  been  witnessed  at  Nicsea ;  that 
He  is  perfect  Man,  had  been  defined  at  Con- 
stantinople; that  He  is  indivisibly  One  Person, 
had  been  settled  at  Ephesus ;  finally,  the  six 
hundred  and  thirty  at  Chalcedon  declared  that 
He  is  one  and  the  same  Christ,  the  Son,  the 
Lord,  the  only-begotten,  in  two  Natures,  with- 
out confusion,  change,  division,  or  separation."* 

*Mahan:  "Ch.  Hist.,"  p.  538. 


246  COUNCILS   OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

This  is  substantially  the  statement  of  Hooker, 
already  brought  before  the  attention  of  this 
Club  in  a  note  appended  to  the  First  Lecture 
upon  Catholic  Dogma. 

The  first  four  General  Councils,  in  the  Provi- 
dence of  God,  did  their  work  so  symmetrically, 
and  succeeded  so  completely  in  presenting  to 
us  all  that  need  be  dogmatically  known  re- 
specting the  Person  and  Natures  of  our  Bless- 
ed Lord,  that  the  Fifth  and  Sixth  Oecumenical 
Synods,  being  in  a  way  supplementary  to  their 
predecessors,  have  been  commonly  supposed  of 
little  interest  or  value.  One  must,  however, 
believe  that  any  Council  accepted  by  the  Uni- 
versal Church  as  an  organ  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
must  have  positive  and  special  value ;  must  have 
an  utterance  of  its  own.  It  would  be  strange 
indeed  were  it  otherwise.  That  at  least  the 
Third  Council  of  Constantinople  added  materi- 
ally to  the  clearness  of  the  Church's  dogmatic 
belief  no  one  can  reasonably  deny.  The  Mono- 
thelite  question  bore  so  directly  upon  the  merit 
of  the  Atonement  (as  resulting  from  the  exer- 
cise of  our  Lord's  purely  human  will),  that  the 
declaration  of  the  Sixth  Oecumenical  Synod,  in 
respect  of  the  integrity  of  that  will,  was  a  real 
gain  upon  what  had  before  been  affirmed. 

The  Fifth  Council  had  no  such  clearly  de- 
fined new  matter,  as  it  were,  to  discuss.     It  was 


COUNCILS   OF  CONSl^ANTINOPLE.  247 

summoned  only  to  accomplish  the  extirpation 
of  Nestorianism,  the  condemnation  of  Nestorius 
himself  and  his  doctrine  having  been  already 
secured  at  the  Council  of  Ephesus.  Relatively 
to  the  Nestorian  question,  therefore,  it  may 
perhaps  be  admitted  that  the  Fifth  Council  was 
superfluous ;  "  that,"  as  Gibbon  puts  it,  "  the 
famous  dispute  about  the  Three  Chapters  has 
filled  more  volumes  than  it  deserves  lines; "yet 
even  here  we  may  well  consider  that  so  long  as 
the  teachings  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  so 
baldly  Nestorian,  if  we  may  so  speak,  remained 
uncensured,  a  well  of  heretical  teaching  lay 
open,  which  it  were  well  to  close.  And  cer- 
tainly it  is  true  that  no  Councils  have  a  larger 
historical  importance,  in  their  bearing  upon 
that  infallibility  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  of  which 
we  have  heard  so  much  in  recent  days. 

And  apart  from  their  value,  these  Councils 
possess  very  exceptional  interest  by  reason  of 
the  great  individuals  and  the  great  associations 
gathered  around  them.  And  if  in  connection 
with  the  Fifth  General  Council  we  also  per- 
ceive a  great  intrigue,  we  must  reflect  that  as 
God  often  makes  the  wrath  of  man  to  praise 
Him,  so  He  brings  good  out  of  manifold  evils, 
and  extracts  honey  for  His  Church  out  of 
many  a  bitter  herb. 

The  story  of  the  Fifth  Council  is  that  of  a 


248  COUNCILS   OF   COySTANTINOPLE. 

great  drama,  gathering  into  its  various  acts 
and  scenes  Justinian,  the  Dacian  peasant  and 
Emperor,  the  codifier  of  the  Roman  law,  the 
suppressor  of  the  schools  of  Athens,  the  builder 
of  the  great  S.  Sophia  at  Constantinople,  the  mu- 
nificent constructor  of  quays,  harbors,  castles, 
churches,  and  monasteries,  in  various  parts  of 
his  empire  ;  Theodora,  his  Empress,  the  actress 
of  former  days,  dissolute  then  beyond  words  to 
fitly  utter,  yet  transformed  into  a  woman  and 
an  Empress,  dutiful  to  her  husband's  honor  and 
great  position,  while  yet  ruling  him  with  an 
extent  and  completeness  of  management  of 
which  history  affords  few  such  examples  ;  Beli- 
sarius,  the  great  general  and  conqueror ;  An- 
tonina  his  wife ;  Agapetus,  Silverius,  Vigilius, 
Pontiffs  of  Rome ;  courtier  bishops  at  Con- 
stantinople ;  disputatious  monks  and  jealous 
bishops  of  Palestine ;  the  memory  of  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia;  and  besides  all  these  the  great 
shade  of  Origen  the  Adamantine. 

And  we  may  say  in  advance  of  our  consider- 
ation of  the  Sixth  General  Council,  that  a  sim- 
ilar grouping  of  great  personages  and  names 
embellishes  its  history ;  e.g.,  Heraclius,  the  con- 
queror of  Persia;  Constans  II.  (and  at  one  time 
probably  in  his  train),  Theodore  of  Tarsus,  after- 
wards our  own  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  ;  and 
in  the  foreground  Popes  Martin  and  Agatho  ; 


COUNCILS   OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.  249 

Wilfrid  of  York,  the  first  Romanizer  of  the 
English  Church ;  and  besides  them  Honorius 
of  Rome,  Sergius  of  Constantinople,  Cyrus 
of  Alexandria,  and  Sophronius  of  Jerusalem. 
Surely  a  great  group  of  great  men  and  great 
memories ! 

We  approach,  then,  the  study  of  these  supple- 
mentary Councils  with  true  respect  for  their 
importance,  their  value,  and  their  interest. 

Were  we  writing  a  history  of  these  times  in- 
stead of  a  lecture  upon  the  Fifth  and  Sixth 
Councils,  we  should  be  obliged  to  follow  a  long 
and  complicated  narrative  of  events,  interven- 
ing between  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  and  the 
Second  of  Constantinople,  involving  the  action 
of  a  line  of  Emperors,  reaching  from  Leo  the 
First  (the  first  sovereign  to  receive  coronation 
at  the  hands  of  a  bishop),  through  Basiliscus 
(the  first  Emperor  to  issue  a  decree  prescribing 
points  of  faith),  through  Zeno,  the  author  of  the 
Henoticon  ;  Anastasius,  and  Justin  I.,  to  Justin- 
ian the  First.  We  should  have  to  follow  the 
organization  of  the  Monophysite  party  in  its 
resistance  to  the  Chalcedonian  Council,  under 
the  leadership  of  Theodosius  of  Palestine, 
Timothy  JElurus,  Peter  Mongus  of  Alexandria, 
Peter  the  Fuller,  Severus  of  Antioch,  and 
Anthimus  the  usurping  and  Monoph3^site  patri- 
arch placed  upon  the  throne  of  S.  Sophia  by 


250  COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

Theodora.  We  should  behold  this  party  sink- 
ing down  into  the  faction  of  the  Acephali,  and 
later  on  into  the  party  of  the  Jacobites. 

But  all  this  detail  must  be  avoided  and  post- 
poned to  the  consideration  of  the  events  and 
issues  distinctly  connected  with  the  synods  as- 
signed us  as  the  subject  of  to-day.  A  word  or 
two,  however,  from  one  of  our  American  his- 
torians, may  be  found  of  value,  as  bridging 
over  with  a  few  bold  strokes  the  interval  be- 
tween the  Fourth  General  Council  and  the  days 
of  Justinian. 

"  The  testimony  of  Chalcedon,"  says  Mahan, 
"  like  that  of  Ephesus,  had  its  wholesome  effect 
mainly  upon  the  upper  soil  of  the  Empire,  upon 
the  cultivated  and  courtly  Greek  intellect.  The 
elements  that  lay  lower,  the  Coptic,  Syriac,  the 
Oriental  mind,  were  only  stirred  by  it  into  a 
poisonous  fermentation."*  An  agitation  fol- 
lowed in  Palestine,  Egypt,  and  Syria,  the  de- 
tails of  which  it  would  needlessly  encumber  us 
to  follow.  "  In  all  these  instances  the  general 
result  was  the  same ;  the  establishment  of 
schismatical  Patriarchates,  with  their  depend- 
encies in  Syria,  Armenia,  Egypt ;  the  fixing  of 
creeds,  canons,  customs,  and  ritual  observ- 
ances, at  the  point  which  they  had  reached  be- 

*  Mahan,  p.  546. 


COUNCILS   OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.  2$ I 

fore  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  ;  the  more  gen- 
eral use  in  worship  of  the  vernacular  tongues, 
a  continuous  disintegration  into  sects  and 
schisms  ;  yet  with  all  a  certain  conservatism,  in 
the  midst  of  furious  agitations,  which  fossilized 
the  religion  of  three,  as  Nestorianism  had  done 
that  of  tivo,  General  Councils,  and  kept  it  a 
mute  witness  to  later  times."* 

In  the  meantime  the  Emperors,  with  that  love 
of  peace  which  characterizes  all  rulers  in  State 
or  Church,  were  endeavoring  to  settle  these  re- 
ligious quarrels  of  their  subjects.  Leo,  Zeno, 
Basiliscus,  Anastasius,  each  bore  his  part  in  the 
attempt.  At  last  Justin  the  Elder  ascended  the 
throne  518  A.D. ;  brave,  gentle,  and  orthodox; 
but  too  ignorant  a  man  to  govern  well  without 
aid,  unsuited  by  temper  or  experience  to  take 
part  in  ecclesiastical  struggles.  His  government 
was  really  administered  by  his  nephew,  Justin- 
ian. This  latter  himself  ascended  the  imperial 
throne  527  A.D.  He  desired  to  be  considered 
a  zealous  champion  of  the  Chalcedonian  ortho- 
doxy. "  Intermeddling  in  theological  disputes 
was  with  him  a  favorite  passion.  Like  Theodo- 
sius  the  Second,  he  affected  the  life  of  a  monk, 
and  cherished  monkish  superstitions.  Like 
Constantius,   he  spent  his  time  in  the  critical 


*Mahan,  p.  546. 


252  COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

balancing  of  dogmas.  Like  Valens,  he  was  a 
ruthless  persecutor:  heretics,  Jews,  Samaritans, 
Pagans,  were  all  victims  in  turn  of  his  remorse- 
less edicts :  if  the  Catholics  escaped,  it  was  only 
because  his  last  change  of  opinion  occurred  too 
near  his  death  to  allow  time  for  its  enforce- 
ment."* "  Among  all  the  titles  of  imperial 
greatness,"  says  Gibbon,  "  the  name  of  Pious 
was  most  pleasing  to  his  ear."  "  He  would," 
says  Neander,  "very  willingly  have  been  law- 
giver to  the  Church  in  the  same  sense  as  he  was 
to  the  State  ;  but  the  more  he  acted,  or  supposed 
he  acted  by  his  own  impulse,  the  more  he 
served  as  the  tool  of  others  who  knew  how  to 
inHuence  him  by  taking  advantage  of  his  weak- 
ness. Thus  he  was  often  obliged  to  subserve 
interests  to  which  he  was  altogether  opposed  in 
his  own  intentions." 

Justinian's  accession  to  the  throne  briners  us 
into  the  penumbra  of  the  Fifth  General  Council, 
and  opens  out  the  way  for  the  singular  share 
two  women  had  in  the  agitations  and  intrigues 
which  preceded  its  assembly.  These  were  the 
Empress  Theodora,  and  Antonina  the  wife  of 
Belisarius. 

By  the  management  of  Theodora,  Anthimus, 
Bishop  of  Trebizond,  a  Monophysite,  who  had 

*  Mahan,  p.  551. 


COUNCILS   OF  CONSTANrmOPLE.  253 

forsaken  his  See  under  the  pretence  of  acquir- 
ing larger  freedom  to  live  a  holy  life  as  a  monk, 
was  promoted  to  the  Patriarchate  of  Constan- 
tinople, then  (535  a.d.)  vacant.  The  Emperor 
supposed  him  to  be  an  orthodox  adherent  of 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  The  deception  had 
been  kept  up  but  a  brief  period  when  a  happy 
accident  as  we  may  say,  brought  the  Roman 
Bishop  Agapetus  to  Constantinople  as  ambas- 
sador of  the  Gothic  King  Theodatus.  Justinian 
commanded  him  to  communicate  with  Anthi- 
mus.  ''  With  the  Bishop  of  Trebizond,"  replied 
the  Pope,  "  when  he  has  returned  to  his  diocese 
and  accepted  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  the 
letters  of  Leo."  The  usurping  Patriarch  was 
summoned  to  render  an  account  of  his  theology 
before  the  Emperor,  convicted  of  Eutychianism, 
and  degraded  from  the  Patriarchal  See,  while 
Mennas,  nominated  in  his  room,  was  conse- 
crated by  Agapetus. 

Theodora,  however,  was  not  a  woman  to  be 
baffled.  She  had  set  her  mind  upon  rehabili- 
tating Monophysitism,  and  now  upon  securing 
the  restoration  of  Anthimus  to  the  throne  of 
the  Patriarchate.  The  story  of  her  method  is 
one  of  the  most  singular  in  history.  In  the 
train  of  Pope  Agapetus  (who  meantime  had 
died  at  Constantinople)  was  a  certain  deacon 
named  Vio;ilius.     This  man  was  of  unmeasured 


254  COUNCILS   OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

ambition,  of  great  ability,  and  of  entire  unscru- 
pulousness.     Theodora  entered  into   a   league 
with  him,  the  object  of  which  was  the  condem- 
nation  of   the  Council    of  Chalcedon,  and  the 
acknowledgment  of   Anthimus   as    the  Bishop 
of   Constantinople.       To   gain    her   point   she 
promised  Vigilius  a  large  sum  of  money,  either 
to  secure  his  election  as  the  successor  of  Aga- 
petus,  or  as  a  substantial  measure  of  reward  for 
his  compliance.      Vigilius   unscrupulously    en- 
tered into  the  arrangement.     Before  he  could 
reach  Rome,  however,  Silverius,  a  subdeacon, 
had  been  elected  Pope.     Refusing  to  enter  into 
a  similar  arrangement  to  that  made  with  Vigi- 
lius, it  was  made  necessary  that  he  should  give 
place  to  the  latter.      He  was  falsely  accused  of 
a  design  to  betray  Rome  to  the  Goths,  and  his 
degradation    was    entrusted    to    Antonina,  the 
wife  of  Belisarius,  "  the  accomplice  of  the  Em- 
press  in   all  of  her  intrigues  of  every  kind." 
Summoned  to  the  Pincian  palace,  the  military 
head-quarters  of  Belisarius,  the   Pontiff  found 
Antonina  seated  on  the  couch,  her  husband  at 
her  feet.     Accused  by  this  imperious  woman 
of  treason,  the   Pope's  pallium   was  rent  from 
his  shoulders  by  a  subdeacon,  "  he  was  hurried 
into  another  room,  stripped  of  the  rest  of  his 
dress,  and  clad  in  that  of  a  monk."     The  clergy 
who  accompanied   him   were    informed   of  his 


COUNCILS   OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.  255 

degradation  in  a  few  careless  words,  "  the  Pope 
Silverius  is  deposed  and  is  now  a  monk." 

Banished  to  Patara,  Silverius  made  his  way 
to  Constantinople,  where  he  stated  his  case  to 
the  Emperor,  who  had  been  kept  in  ignorance 
of  the  intrigue.  Justinian  commanded  his  im- 
mediate return  to  Rome,  where,  meantime  Vi- 
gilius  had  been  elected  to  Silverius's  place ; 
and  it  is  said  had  paid  two  hundred  pounds  of 
gold  to  Belisarius  for  his  interest.  By  the  in- 
fluence of  Antonina,  Silverius  on  his  return 
was  given  up  to  Vigilius,  who  caused  him  to  be 
seized,  and  carried  off  to  the  island  of  Palmaria, 
where  he  died  of  starvation. 

Vigilius  was  now,  by  command  of  Belisarius, 
undisputed  Pope.  (The  statement  of  Baronius, 
that  after  the  death  of  Silverius,  he  resigned 
the  Popedom,  and  was  legitimately  re-elected 
to  it,  is  without  foundation  in  fact.)  As  Mil- 
man  remarks,  "  he  had  paid  already  a  fearful 
price  for  his  advancement ;  false  accusation, 
cruel  oppression,  perhaps  murder."  At  Rome, 
in  544  A. D.,  he  declared  his  adhesion  to  the  Four 
Councils  and  to  the  Tome  of  Leo,  and  approved 
the  Anathema  of  Mennas  of  Constantinople 
against  the  Monophysites.  "  But  four  3'ears 
after,  Theodora  demanded,  and  Vigilius  dared 
not  refuse,  the  rest  of  his  unholy  covenant,  at 
least  the   base  and  secret  adoption  of  all  her 


256  COUNCILS    OF   CONSTAJVTI.VOPLE. 

heretical  opinions.  In  a  letter  still  extant  (a 
private  letter  to  Theodora,  possibly  not  brought 
to  light  until  after  her  death)  "  but  contested 
on  account  of  its  damning  effect  on  one  who 
was,  or  afterward  became.  Pope,  rather  than 
from  any  mark,  either  external  or  internal,  of 
spuriousness,"  Vigilius  gave  his  deliberate  ad- 
hesion. He  had  earlier,  it  seems,  confided  to 
the  hands  of  Antonina  letters  addressed  to  An- 
thimus,  and  to  the  other  leaders  of  the  Mono- 
physite  party,  "  in  which  he  expressed  opinions 
wholly  in  accordance  with  the  Monophysite 
views,  and  signified  his  agreement  in  faith  with 
them  ;  but  at  the  same  time  he  craftily  requested 
them,  in  order  that  he  might  keep  on  good 
terms  with  all  parties,  to  be  careful  not  to  di- 
vulge what  he  had  written,  but  rather  to  i)ut 
on  the  appearance  of  being  particularly  sus- 
picious about  his  faith,  so  that  he  might  the 
more  easily  accomplish  what  he  had  under- 
taken." *  He  added  a  confession  of  his  own 
faith,  condemned  the  Tome  of  Leo,  and  anathe- 
matized Paul  of  Samosata,  Diodorus  of  Tarsus, 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  Theodoret,  Bishop  of 
Cyrus,  and  all  who  agreed  with  them. 

This  is  the  man  whom  Theodora  selected  to 
carry  out  her  purposes  for  the  Monophysites. 


*Neander,  vol.  ii. ,  3d  American  ed-,  p.  536. 


COUNCILS   OF  COXSTAXTIXOPLE.  257 

This  is  the  inerrant  Pontiff  whose  vacillations, 
in  respect  of  "  the  Three  Chapters,"  before  and 
durinor  the  Fifth  Council,  we  shall  be  called 
upon  to  observe. 

Meantime  something  had  happened  in  an- 
other direction  than  that  of  Monophysitism. 
The  controversies  respecting  the  writings  of 
Origen,  which  had  been  rife  in  Palestine  more 
or  less  since  the  fourth  century,  had  lately  re- 
vived in  the  monasteries  of  that  countrv  after 
they  had  been  at  rest  for  a  century  and  a  half. 
They  broke  out  about  520  a.d.,  and  precipitated 
upon  the  Church  events  now  to  be  described. 
First,  however,  a  word  must  be  said  about  Ori- 
gen and  his  controverted  opinions,  although  so 
much  has  been  admirably  said  of  him,  and  of  the 
Alexandrian  School  in  a  former  lecture  before 
this  body.  It  will  be  enough  perhaps  to  remark 
of  him  that,  born  about  185  A.D.,  at  Alexandria, 
he  affords  us  the  first  historical  picture  of  the 
bringing  up  of  a  Christian  child.  From  his 
earliest  boyhood  he  seems  to  have  been  inter- 
ested in  the  deeper  meanings  of  Holy  Script- 
ure. His  questions  to  his  father  upon  the 
Sacred  Writings  were  so  many  and  so  search- 
ing that  when  the  boy  lay  asleep  Leonides  used 
to  kiss  his  breast  ("  not  his  brow,"  Bishop  West- 
cott  observes,  "  Pectus  facit  tJicologuin  ")  as  the 
temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Devout,  ascetic, 
17 


258  COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTIMOPLE. 

learned,  gifted,  he  became  master  of  the  Cate- 
chetical School  of  Alexandria  when  but  a  youth 
of  eighteen.     This  famous  school,  founded,  it  is 
believed,  by  S.   Mark,  was   not   ecclesiastical. 
Its  staff  were  not  necessarily  clergy.     It  had 
been  presided  over  by  Pant^nus  and  by  Clem- 
ent before  its  mastership  came  to  Origen.     Its 
purpose  was  "  partly  to  absorb,  and  partly  to 
counteract,  the   intellectual  influences  outside 
Christianity."     Its  aim  was  much  like  that  of 
the  earlier  schoolmen,  to   reconcile  faith  and 
reason  ;  its  effort  much  like  that  of  our  own  day, 
to  reconcile  religion  and  science.     It  had  great 
respect  for  ancient  learning,  and  for  all  true 
philosophy.      It  accepted   the   principle  "that 
Christianity  is  the   inheritor,  not  only  of   the 
law  and  the  prophets,  but  of  everything  that 
is  true  and  helpful  in   heathen  philosophy."^' 
"  This  school,  in  its  greatness  and  its  faultiness, 
has  well  been  called  "an  attractive  but  bewil- 
dering subject  for  the  student."     "  Its  powers 
were  manifest,  and  its  pi-oductions  were  brilliant: 
but  their  positive  results  it  is  by  no  means  easy 
to  comprehend  or  weigh  :  it  is  suggestive  rather 
than  solid.     Its  errors  are  abundant,  although 
instructive.     And  it  is  richer  in  influence  than 
in  tangible  results."  f     This  school  has  always 

*  Plummer's  "Church  of  the  Early  Fathers,"  p.  70. 
\  Ibid.,  in  loc. 


COUNCILS   OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.  2  59 

attracted  the  sympathy  of  minds  that  love 
learning,  largeness,  and  every  sort  of  generosity 
and  magnanimity  of  judgment  and  feeling.  In 
some  respects  it  is  the  gauge  of  a  man's  quality 
of  nature  and  mind,  whether  or  not  he  can 
comprehend,  and  render  justice  to,  the  ideals 
and  postulates  of  this  great-  school.  Of  it 
Origen  was  "  the  finest  flower."  Its  glory  cul- 
minates in  him.  His  speech  and  his  life  made 
him  "a  paradise"  to  his  pupils,  both  here  and 
elsewhere.  No  one  of  his  day  approached  him 
"  in  the  power  which  he  exhibited  in  promoting 
sacred  learning,  in  reconciling  philosophy  and 
religion,  in  confuting  and  converting  pagans, 
Jews,  and  heretics,  and  in  proving  that  Chris- 
tianity supplies  the  noblest  ideals  to  both  the 
intellect  and  the  will  of  man."*  He  loved 
sanctity,  and  he  loved  the  enlightened  under- 
standing also.  One  of  our  greatest  American 
writers  has  said,  "  the  human  mind  stands  ever 
in  perplexity,  demanding  intellect,  demanding 
sanctity  ;  impatient  equally  of  each  without  the 
other."  Origen  eminently  realized  this,  and  so 
pouring  out  himself  and  his  wonderful  learning 
and  thought,  in,  it  is  improbably  said,  no  less 
than  six  thousand  works,  it  is  not  wonderful 
that  from   his  love  of  philosophical  thinking, 

*  Plummer's  "Church  of  the  Holy  Fathers,"  p.  70,  in  loc. 


26o  COUNCILS   OF  CONSTANTINOPLE, 

from  his  delight  in  intellectual  faculty,  from 
his  belief  in  the  human  reason  as  the  overflow 
of  the  divine  reason,  he  should  be  led,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  dogmatic  decisions  on  many  points, 
into  what  we  now  must  hold  to  be  errors.  His 
language,  for  example,  in  respect  of  the  subor- 
dination of  the  Eternal  Son  to  the  Father ;  cer- 
tain of  his  opinions  as  to  the  Divine  Spirit ;  his 
speculations  as  to  the  eternity  of  matter ;  pre- 
existence  of  souls;  the  possibility  of  sin  in  a 
former  state ;  the  nature  of  the  resurrection 
body  and  the  resurrection  life  ;  the  redemption 
of  other  beings  than  man ;  the  final  restitution 
of  all  lost  angels  and  men.  It  is  well  said  that 
"  these  are  problems  which  perhaps  will  never 
cease  to  be  discussed,  but  to  which  the  human 
mind  in  this  world  is  not  likely  to  find  the 
answer.  The  discussion  of  them  is  not  very 
fruitful,  and  may  easily  become  dangerous."  * 

The  name  and  opinions  of  Origen,  smaller 
souls  and  heretics  of  various  descriptions, 
sought  to  shelter  themselves  behind.  His  pos- 
tulates were  pressed  beyond  their  intended 
end,  and  his  words  were  quoted  apart  from 
his  reverent  and  submissive  habit  of  mind. 
What  he  discussed  as  matter  of  possible  truth, 
discernible    to  the    Christian  sage,  other   men 

*  Plummer  :  in  loc. 


COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE.  26 1 

taught  as  dogmatic  certainties  ;  open  to  the 
reception  of  all.  And  so  it  came  to  pass  that, 
in  the  absence  of  authentic  evidence  of  Ori- 
gen's  real  views,  and  upon  the  basis  of  cor- 
rupted versions  of  his  utterances,  eccentric  and 
uncatholic  ideas  came  to  be  promulgated  under 
his  name;  though,  on  the  other  hand,  it  must  be 
admitted  that  his  De  Principiis  contained  suf- 
ficient speculative  matter  to  make  him  a  sus- 
pected teacher. 

It   so    happened,   then,  to    put   it    briefly,  in 
Robertson's  words,  that   "  from    the   year    520 
there  had  been  disturbances  among  the  monks 
of  Palestine  on  the  subject  of  Origen's  opinions, 
which  were  especially  maintained  by  the  mem- 
bers of  '  The  New  Laura,'  while  the  majority  of 
the  monks  were  violent  anti-Origenists.     There 
had  been  censures,  expulsions,  frequent  affrays, 
and  bloodshed.      The    Patriarchs    of   Antioch 
and  Jerusalem  were  unable  to  allay  the  differ- 
ences, and  Justinian  was  well  pleased  to  receive 
an  appeal  on  the  subject.     He  published  a  letter 
to   the    Patriarch    Mennas,    censuring     certain 
doctrines   extracted  or  inferred  from  Origen's 
writings  ;  he  declared  that  they  were  borrowed 
from    Plato   and   the    Manicheans   (apparently 
forgetting  that  Manes  was  later  than  Origen) ; 
and  he  desired  Mennas  to  bring  the  question 
before  the  Home  Synod.     This  body  censured 


262  COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

the  opinions  of  Origen,  and  pronounced  fifteen 
anathemas  against  them.  The  imperial  mani- 
festo was  subscribed  by  Vigilius  and  the  four 
Patriarchs  of  the  East."  *  The  Emperor  also 
directed  that  for  the  future  no  person  should 
be  appointed  bishop  or  abbot  without  first  con- 
demning Origen,  along  with  the  other  heretics. 
Justinian  could  expect  no  general  disturbance 
from  these  measures,  as  the  judgment  of  the 
Church  respecting  Origen's  peculiar  opinions 
had  from  the  first  been  determined.  Strangely 
enough,  both  Domitian  and  Theodore  Ascidas, 
Origenist  Bishops  at  the  court,  subscribed  the 
decrees  and  anathemas  of  the  Synod,  and  so 
maintained  their  influence  with  their  imperial 
rulers. 

Ascidas,  however,  who  was  very  notabl}^  an 
Origenist,  felt  the  necessity  of  diverting  the 
Emperor's  mind  from  the  very  dangerous  di- 
rection which  (as  he  thought)  it  had  taken. 
Knowing  Justinian's  anxiety  to  reduce  the  Acc- 
phali  to  conformity,  he  persuaded  him  that 
their  opposition  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
did  not  arise  from  repugnance  to  its  doctrines, 
but  from  its  recognition  of  persons  suspected 
of  Nestorianism,  such  as  Theodoret  and  Ibas ; 
he   therefore  suggested   that  by  a   condemna- 

*  Rolaertson  :   "Church  History,"  in  loc.     ,     - 


COi'XC/LS   OF   CONSTANTIXOPLE.  263 

tion  of  these  Bishops,  with  the  recognized  fa- 
ther of  Nestorianism,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia, 
the  prejudices  of  the  party  might  be  overcome, 
and  they  might  be  won  to  a  reconciliation.  As 
for  the  objection  to  condemning  persons  who 
had  died  in  the  communion  of  the  Church,  it 
was  (he  said)  removed  by  the  late  precedent  of 
the  anathemas  against  Origen. 

Thus  a  new  question  was  precipitated  upon 
the  Church.  It  was  no  longer  the  contro- 
versy upon  Origenism  or  Monophysitism,  but 
whether  certain  writings  a  century  old  were 
favorable  to  Nestorianism, 

This  compels  a  word  as  to  the  persons  and 
writings  now  to  come  under  consideration,  viz. : 
Theodore,  Bishop  of  Mopsuestia ;  Theodoret, 
Bishop  of  Cyrus,  and  Ibas,  Bishop  of  Edessa, 
and  the  three  chapters.  Before  discussing 
them,  however,  it  will  be  necessary  to  take  a 
glance  at  the  great  theological  school  of  An- 
tioch,  which  Theodore  in  particular  so  emi- 
nently represented. 

Antioch  was  the  head  of  the  Syrian  Churches, 
and  shared  very  largely  in  the  general  awaken- 
ing of  thought  which  distinguished  the  latter 
half  of  the  second  century.  The  struggle  of 
Paul  of  Samosata  had  had  a  good  effect  upon 
the  Antiochian  Church  in  awakening  increased 
interest  in  the  study  of  Holy  Scripture  ;  but  a 


264  COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

certain  Aristotelian,  mathematical,  and  coldly 
logical  spirit  had  quickly  taken  possession  of 
this  school,  sharply  marking  it  off  against  the 
mystic  and  more  spiritual  school  of  Alexan- 
dria. "  There  were  within  it,  however,"  as  has 
been  remarked,  "  many  learned  men,  with  much 
study,  much  discussion,  much  effort  to  recon- 
cile religion  with  what  was  then  considered 
science ;  much  earnest  and  thoughtful,  and  in 
some  cases  it  would  seem  sceptical,  investiga- 
tion." *  There  was  also  a  vicious  habit  of 
making  sacred  themes  the  subjects  of  school 
exercises  in  declamation  or  debate,  and  in  ad- 
dition to  all  this,  a  subtle  influence  of  the  Juda- 
ising  spirit.  In  contrast  to  the  allegorizing 
method  of  the  school  of  Alexandria,  the  school 
of  Antioch  was  marked  by  a  more  critical  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture.  It  looked  to  grammar 
and  history  for  its  principles  of  exegesis.  This 
tendency  was  markedly  encouraged  in  time  by 
distinguished  men,  among  whom  were  Dio- 
dorus  of  Tarsus,  and  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia. 
The  allegorizing  method  of  Alexandria,  it  has 
been  well  said,  "  without  difficulty  accommo- 
dated itself  to  the  tradition  of  the  Church,  and 
its  veneration  for  Holy  Scripture  was  so  great 
that  it  hardly  admitted  any  human  element  to 

*  Mahan,  p.  284, 


COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTiyOPLE.  26$ 

be  taken  account  of.  Every  jot  and  tittle  had 
significance.  The  grammaticological  system 
of  Antioch  took  notice  of  the  human  as  well  as 
the  divine  element  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures; 
men  were  led  to  perceive  the  diversity  of  hu- 
man individualities  of  character  in  the  style  of 
the  inspired  writers ;  discrepancies  were  noted 
between  historical  accounts  in  particular  mat- 
ters, and  the  perception  of  these  facts  led  to  a 
different  way  of  apprehending  the  idea  of  in- 
spiration." 

And  it  has  been  said  with  equal  force  that 
"  in  connection  with  this  different  mode  of  con- 
ceiving the  idea  of  inspiration  there  would 
come  to  be  fixed,  also,  a  different  point  of  view 
from  which  to  consider  the  divine  and  human 
elements  in  the  lives  of  the  apostles,  and  in  the 
life  of  Christ  himself."  The  exegetical  ten- 
dency just  described  could  not  but  lead  to  the 
emphasizing  of  the  human  element  in  Christ,  as 
the  Alexandrian  tendency  gave  prominence  to 
the  divine.  This  special  tendency  of  the  Antio- 
chian  School  was  wrought  out  in  the  ApoUina- 
rian  controversy  (in  which  the  Catholic  tenet, 
that  our  Lord  possessed  a  true  human  soul,  was 
opposed  by  the  teaching  of  Apollinaris,  that  the 
place  of  the  1/01)9  in  Christ  was  supplied  by  the 
X0709). 

"  In  order  to  maintain  the  principle  of  a  really 


266  COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

human  ethical  personality  in  the  historical  Per- 
son of  Jesus,  not  only  the  completeness,  but  also 
the  independence,  and  the  permanent  distinc- 
tion of  nature,  of  the  human  nature,  was  empha- 
sized." *  "A  doctrine  of  the  ethical  develop- 
ment of  Christ  was  so  taught  by  the  Antiochian 
opponents  of  Apollinaris  as  to  endanger  the 
unity  of  the  Divine-human  person  of  Christ ;  to 
incur  the  danger  of  its  being  split  in  two." 
Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  and  Theodore  of  Mopsu- 
estia,  very  pre-eminently  represented  this  ten- 
dency. Of  the  first  of  these  it  is  only  neces- 
sary just  now  to  say  that  in  the  ApoUinarian 
discussion  "  there  appeared  in  him  that  concep- 
tion of  the  person  of  Christ  already  prefigured 
in  the  Antiochian  tendency,  and  which  brought 
him  into  a  certain  degree  of  discord  with  the 
other  defenders  of  the  Nicene  doctrine,  and 
made  him  very  especially  and  notably  the 
founder  of  the  dogmatic  school  of  Antioch." 

As  the  school  of  Alexandria  reached  its 
highest  point  in  Origen,  so  the  dogmatic 
school  of  Antioch  reached  its  climax  in  Theo- 
dore of  Mopsuestia.  Like  Diodorus,  he  was  a 
native  of  Antioch,  and  died  about  428  or  429 
A.D.  He  was  pre-eminently  a  commentator,  and 
in   this   connection    Moeller   remarks  of    him: 


f  .Moeller's  "  History  of  the  Christian  Church,"  p.  416. 


councils;  of  c onsta ntinople.        267 

"  Grammatico-historical  explanation  and  obser- 
vation of  the  temporal  horizon  of  the  writer, 
even  where  the  indwelling,  typical  character  of 
prophecy  is  recognized,  and  on  the  other  hand, 
free  judgment  on  the  Canon,  and  the  value  of 
individual  books,  are  the  outstanding  charac- 
teristics of  (his)  exegesis.  ...  In  his  com- 
bating of  Apollinaris  and  Eunomius  and  (in) 
the  treatise  written  thirty  years  later  against 
Apollinarius  .  .  .•  the  Christological  view  is 
clearly  impressed,  which  conceals  within  itself 
sharp  opposition  to  the  neo-Alexandrian  ten- 
dency." * 

"  It  was  the  great  purpose  of  Theodore,"  says 
Neander,  "  to  show  in  what  way  we  are  to  con- 
ceive that  deity  and  humanity,  while  abiding 
each  in  its  own  peculiar  essence  in  Christ,  were 
still  bound  together  by  a  certain  relation  in  one 
personal  fellowship  and  unity.  ...  If  we 
look  at  the  distinction  of  the  deity  and  human- 
ity," says  he,  quoting  Theodore,  "  there  we  must 
distinguish  from  each  other  two  natures,  abid- 
ing without  disturbance,  each  in  its  own  purity 
and  completeness;  and  accordingl}^,  since  both 
the  conceptions  are  strictly  connected,  two  per- 
sons. But  if  we  look  at  their  union  in  the  above- 
mentioned  relation,  we  must  speak  of  Christ  as 

*  Moeller's  "  History  of  the  Christian  Church,"'  p.  407. 


268  COUNCILS   OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

a  person  in  whom,  as  one,  the  human  nature  has 
been  taken  up  into  fellowship  with  the  divine."  * 
This  Theodore  illustrates  by  comparing  it  with 
the  case  in  which  man  and  wife  are  a  certain 
relation,  called  one  body.  "  Thus,"  Neander 
goes  on  to  say,  "  Theodore  contradicted  what 
constituted  the  prevailing  doctrine,  not  only 
in  the  Alexandrian  Church,  but  also  in  other 
Churches." 

Dorner  sums  up  the  leading  principles  of 
Theodore's  teaching  in  these  words  :  f  "  The 
completeness  of  his  conception  of  the  humanity 
of  Christ  may  be  seen  from  a  series  of  individ- 
ual traits  which  he  has  preserved  for  us.  Mary 
gave  birth  to  Jesus,  not  to  the  Logos,  for  the 
Logos  was  and  continued  to  be  omnipresent, 
although  from  the  commencement  he  dwelt  in 
a  peculiar  way  in  Jesus.  The  Logos  did  not 
originate  with  and  in  Jesus,  Mary  therefore 
was  properly  the  Mother  of  Christ,  not  of  God. 
Only  in  a  fignxQ, per  anaphorain,  can  she  be  styled 
the  Mother  of  God,  namely,  on  the  ground  that 
God  was  in  Christ  in  a  special  manner.  Strictly 
speaking,  she  bore  a  man  with  whom  the  Logos 
had  already,  it  is  true,  begun  to  unite  himself, 
but  the  union  was  at  first  so  far  from  complete, 


*  Neander,  Vol.  ii.,  p.  443. 

f  Dorner's  "Person  of  Christ,"  Div.  2,  Vol.  i.,  p.  44. 


COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE.  269 

that  Jesus  could  not  then  have  been  termed  Son 
of  God  or  Redeemer.  He  was  called  Jesus,  a 
name  which  Joshua  also  had  borne.  Not  till 
after  His  baptism  was  he  designated  Son  of 
God  by  the  voice  of  the  Father,  just  as  Simon 
and  Saul  received,  at  a  later  period,  the  names 
Peter  and  Paul.  ...  By  nature  this  man 
was  neither  Son  of  God,  nor  Lord." 

These  expressions  and  many  similar  ones, 
significantly,  as  Dorner  goes  on  to  say,  "  indicate 
Theodore's  peculiar  position.  .  .  .  Strictly 
speaking,  the  two  persons  were  one  only  in 
outward  appearance,  as  the  image  of  marriage 
shows.  Inwardly  they  were  still  two  persons, 
though  harmoniously  related,  and  so  closely 
connected,  that  everything  done,  was  done  at 
the  impulse  of  the  Logos  in  Christ."  Essenti- 
aliter,  they  continued  two  persons;  actualiter, 
they  had  the  appearance  of  one  person.* 

From  this  brief  resume  of  Theodore's  dicta 
on  what  the  Church  knows  as  the  Hypostatic 
Union,  we  must  perceive  at  a  glance  that  they 
are  quite  at  one  with  the  teachings  of  Nesto- 
rius,  in  point  of  doctrine  the  disciple  of  Theo- 
dore. 

One  can  perceive  no  substantial  difference 
between  the    Christology    of  the   disciple  and 


*  Dorner's  "  Person  of  Christ,"  Div.  2,  Vol.  i.,  p.  47. 


270  COUXCILS   OF   C ONSTA NTI NOP LE. 

the  master.  Nestorius's  doctrine  differed  from 
that  of  Theodore,  it  has  been  said,  "only  in  its 
containing  fewer  speculative  elements,  and  in 
its  evincing  less  anxiety  (perhaps  on  polemical 
ground)  to  preserve  the  unity  of  the  Person  of 
Christ  than  was  displayed  by  his  teacher." 

Not  only  was  Theodore's  rationale  of  the 
Hypostatic  Union  contrary  to  the  doctrine  after- 
ward declared  at  Ephesus ;  he  was  offensive  to 
many  for  the  freedom  of  his  views  on  the  sub- 
ject of  inspiration.  These  views  were  very 
noteworthy.  "  He  assigned  different  degrees  of 
inspiration  to  different  books  of  Holy  Scripture, 
according  to  their  character  as  historical,  pro- 
phetic, or  didactic.  He  seems  to  have  very  lit- 
tle valued  the  books  of  Solomon.  The  book  of 
Job  he  thought  lightly  of.  Chronicles,  Ezra, 
and  Nehemiahhe  quite  rejected.  The  accuracy 
of  the  titles  of  the  Psalms  he  denied."  He  mini- 
mized the  value  of  what  we  know  as  the  Messi- 
anic element,  referring  Messianic  passages  to 
the  Kings  of  Israel.  He  criticised  the  general 
Epistles,  and  like  Luther,  rejected  the  Epistle 
of  S.  James.  It  was  not  therefore  wonderful, 
in  the  final  issue  of  things  at  the  Fifth  General 
Council,  that  those  who  said  that  "  he  was  an 
orthodox  expounder  "  were  anathematized.  It 
may  be  remarked,  too,  that  his  general  tendency 
of  mind  led  him  also  to  reject  the  doctrine  of 


COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE.  2/1 

original  sin,  and  so  placed  him  among  the  Pela- 
gian theologians. 

Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Cyrus,  the  second  of  the 
persons  involved  in  the  matter  of  the  Three 
Chapters,  was  like  Theodore  a  native  of  An- 
tioch.  Though  an  exegete,  he  is  perhaps  best 
known  as  an  ecclesiastical  historian.  His 
place  in  the  history  of  events  now  under  con- 
sideration, grows  out  of  his  relation  to  the 
Nestorian  controversy  and  his  attitude  tow- 
ard Cyril  of  Alexandria,  in  connection  with  it. 
Cyril,  while  zealously  and  needfully  fighting 
the  battle  of  orthodoxy,  which  raged  about  the 
word  Theotokos,  unhappily  yielded  himself  to 
an  arrogant  temper,  and,  in  Theodoret's  view, 
"seemed  to  turn  the  dispute  about  the  word 
into  a  contest  between  the  doctrinal  systems 
of  the  two  schools  of  Antioch  and  Alexandria." 

In  the  year  430  A.D.,  Cyril  sent  a  letter  to 
Nestorius,  in  which  he  "  laid  before  him  the 
system  of  doctrine  which  he  must  confess  as 
the  true  system,  and  unfolded  in  twelve  for- 
mulas of  condemnation  (or  anathemas)  what  he 
had  to  recant."  These  formulas,  orthodox  and 
necessary  as  they  were,  yet  constituted  at  the 
same  time  nothing  less  than  "  the  Egyptian 
Creed  "  "  carried  out  in  opposition  to  the  rigidly 
Antiochian  system,  as  it  had  been  expressed  in 
the  technical  phrases  of  the  Antiochian  School." 


2/2  COUNCILS   OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

The  question,  as  Cyril  put  it,  resolved  itself  as 
the  Antiochians  thought,  from  an  attack  upon 
Nestorius  to  one  on  the  form  of  doctrine  taught 
in  the  Syrico-Asiatic  Church,  a  form  mistaken 
and  defective  as  we  know  it  to  be,  yet  endeared 
to  the  theologians  of  Antioch  as  their  contri- 
bution toward  the  maintenance  of  the  human 
nature,  as  against  the  ApoUinarians.  John, 
Patriarch  of  Antioch,  who  stood  at  the  head  of 
the  Antiochian  teachers,  deemed  it  necessary  to 
enter  into  a  public  refutation  of  these  anathe- 
mas, and  selected  Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Cyrus, 
for  this  purpose.  Theodoret  in  fulfilling  this 
mission  fell  into  the  snare  which  so  often  be- 
sets theologians.  He  permitted  his  dogmatic 
zeal  to  cloud  his  fairness,  and  instead  of  grate- 
fully recognizing  what  truth  underlay  the  ana- 
themas of  Cyril,  pressed  their  forms  of  expres- 
sion in  such  a  way  as  to  make  the  Alexandrian 
Patriarch  utter  heresies,  Apollinarian,  Gnos- 
tic, Manichsean.  For  more  than  twenty  years 
Theodoret  continued  his  struggle  with  the 
Alexandrian  dogmatic  formulte. 

The  third  person  involved  in  the  ultimate 
condemnation  of  "the  Three  Chapters"  was 
Ibas,  Bishop  of  Edessa  from  about  435  to  457 
A.D.  He  appears  first  as  a  presbyter  of  that 
Church,  under  the  episcopate  of  Rabulas;  and 
warmly  advocated  those  Antiochian  views   of 


COUNCILS   OF   COXSTAXTIXOPLE.  2/3 

which  the  Bishop  was  an  uncompromising  op- 
ponent.    He  translated  into  Syriac  and  dissem- 
inated   the  writings  of  Theodore  of  Mopsues- 
tia,  whom  he  ardently  admired.     He  attended 
the  Council  of  Ephesus,  431  a.d.,  as  a  presbyter. 
In  433    he   wrote   the   letter   to  Maris,  a  Per- 
sian Bishop,  to  which  so  much  celebrity  belongs 
as   one  of   the    Tria   capitula.     This  letter  was 
written   angrily    against    Cyril,    charging    him 
with  ApoUinarianism,  with  denying  the  Catho- 
lic doctrine  of  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in 
one    Person.     It    also    denounced    the    twelve 
anathemas  of  Cyril  as  heretical.     He  acquaint- 
ed Maris  with  the  behavior  generally  of  Cyril 
at    Ephesus,    and  with  his  ultimate  reconcilia- 
tion with  John  of  Antioch.     He  exulted  over 
what   he  thought  the  recession  of  Cyril  from 
his  Ultra-Alexandrianism.     On  his  accession  to 
the  Episcopal  See  of  Edessa,  in  435  or  436,  his 
enemies  took  concerted  measures  to  secure  his 
deposition,  accusing  him  of  fomenting  dissen- 
sion   between   the    Syrian    and    the    Egyptian 
Bishops,  of  openly  preaching  heretical  doctrine, 
etc.*     After   much    plotting    and    many   vexa- 
tious measures,  he  was  at  last  deposed  by  his 
enemies  from  his  see,  eventually    restored    to 
him   however  by   the    Council  of   Chalcedon ; 


*  "  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,"  in  loc. 
iS 


274  COUNCILS   OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

M^hich  having  heard  read  his  letter  to  Maris, 
and  having  demanded  of  him  that  he  should 
anathematize  Nestorius  and  Eutyches,  and  ac- 
cept the  Tome  of  Leo,  admitted  him  to  his  seat 
and  vote  as  bishop  of  Edessa.  And  we  may  as 
well  say  here  as  elsewhere,  that  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  at  a  previous  session  had  taken  sub- 
stantially the  same  action  in  Theodoret's  case. 
On  Theodoret's  appearance  at  the  first  session, 
he  was  received  with  loud  cries  of  disfavor  on 
^account  of  his  share  in  the  controversy  between 
Cyril  and  Nestorius.  Being  compelled  at  the 
eighth  session  to  anathematize  Nestorius  by 
name,  he  was  pronounced  exonerated  by  the 
Judges,  and  the  Synod  in  due  form  received 
him  into  favor. 

These,  then,  were  the  three  men,  and  these 
their  specific  writings,  whose  condemnation, 
Ascidas  persuaded  the  Emperor,  was  alone 
wanting  to  bring  about  the  reconciliation  of 
the  Monophysites.  Justinian  had  desired  this 
reconciliation,  and  had  been  about  to  bring 
out  over  his  own  name  a  work  in  defence  of 
the  Chalcedonian  Council  against  their  objec- 
tions. The  Empress  Theodora  joined  hands 
with  the  Origenist  Ascidas  in  this  undertaking, 
and  the  Emperor  was  persuaded  to  issue  an 
Edict  on  the  subject,  which,  from  the  three 
repeatedly  mentioned  points  of  which  it  treated, 


COUNCILS   OF   COXSTANTINOPLE.  275 

afterward  obtained  the  name  of  the  Edict  De 
Tribus  Capitulis.  By  this,  anathema  was  pro- 
nounced upon  the  person  of  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia  and  his  Avritings  ;  on  Theodoret's  writ- 
ings against  Cyril,  and  upon  the  letter  of  Ibas. 
The  anathema  was  extended  to  all  the  de- 
fenders of  "  the  Three  Chapters,"  and  to  all 
who  should  draw  any  inference  from  the  Edict 
tathe  prejudice  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 

The  Edict  was  now  sent  throughout  the  Em- 
pire  for   signature.     This   was   not  so  easy    a 
thing  to  accomplish  as  had  been  the  subscrip- 
tion to  the  condemnation    of  Origen ;  for  the 
new  measure  of  Justinian  was  at  once  taken  to 
be  an  attack  on  the  authority  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  and  a  favoring  of  the  Monophysites. 
Mennas,  the   Patriarch    of    Constantinople,  ex- 
pressed himself  as  opposed  to  the  Edict,  because 
it    seemed    disparaging    to   the     Chalcedonian 
Synod.     He  declared  that  he  would  wait  until 
he    should   learn   the    purpose   of   the    Roman 
Bishop.     Mennas  at  length    yielded,  however, 
and  subscribed  conditionally,  upon  the  Roman 
Bishop  not  opposing  the  condemnation  of  "  the 
Three  Chapters."     The  other  Patriarchs  of  the 
East,  under  threat  of  deposition,  likewise  sub- 
scribed.    The  West,  however,  and  the  African 
Church  especially,  refused  compliance. 

As    Pope   Vigilius's  adherence  to  the   Edict 


276  COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

was  SO  very  important  to  the  purpose  of  Jus- 
tinian, the  Emperor  summoned  him  to  Con- 
stantinople. "  He  set  forth,"  says  Milman, 
"  loaded  with  the  imprecations  of  the  Roman 
people,  and  assailed  with  volumes  of  stones,  as 
the  murderer  of  Silverius,  and  a  man  of  notor- 
ious cruelty." 

Vigilius  had  been  well  advised  by  the  Afri- 
can theologians,  and  on  starting  out  was  reso- 
lute against  the  Edict.  He  faced  the  Emperor 
bravely,  terming  him  "  a  new  Diocletian."  He 
excluded  from  his  communion  Mennas,  the  Pa- 
triarch of  Constantinople  ;  he  excommunicated 
Theodorus  Ascidas,  the  Origenist  Bishop  of 
Csesarea,  and  put  under  his  ban  the  lately  de- 
ceased Empress  herself.  All  which  censures 
before  long  he  was  compelled  to  withdraw. 
Vigilius  at  length  suffered  himself  to  be  drawn 
into  a  secret  written  declaration,  condemning 
the  Three  Articles.  Through  Vigilius,  Justin- 
ian attempted  to  influence  a  Synod  assembled 
at  Constantinople.  Vigilius  was  glad  that  his 
first  public  declaration  on  so  perilous  a  subject 
should  be  buttressed  by  such  episcopal  follow- 
ing, and  trusted  that  such  support  would  in  so 
much  secure  him  from  the  reproach  of  his  own 
see  and  from  that  of  the  West  generally.  The 
Bishops,  however,  could  not  be  managed  as  an 
assembly.     The  Pope  therefore  negotiated  with 


COUNCILS   OF   COXSTANTINOPLE.  2/7 

them  as  individuals,  and  so  succeeded.     He  so 
dexterously  managed  the  matter,  as  to  secure 
for   his   first    public    declaration,    viz.,    his   so- 
called    Judicatum,   the    signatures   of    seventy 
Bishops.     (In  the  Jiidicatuui  Vigilius  aimed  at 
satisfying  both  parties  ;  the  Orientals  by  con- 
demnino-   the  Three   Articles,  and  the  Latins, 
by  professing  that  he  did  so  without  prejudice 
to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.)     This  step,  how- 
ever, did  not  fail  to  produce  opposition.     Two 
of  the  Pope's  deacons  opposed  him,  and  spread 
the  Judicatiun  far  and  wide.     The  North  Afri- 
can Church  formally  excommunicated  him  in  a 
Synodal  Decree.     "  The  West  at  once  threw  off 
its  allegiance,  and  refused  to  Hsten  to  the  ingen- 
ious sophistry  with  which  Vigilius   attempted 
to    reconcile    his    solemn   judgment    with    his 
former   opinions.      Illyricum,    Africa,  with    all 
her  own  dauntless  pertinacity,  even    his  own 
clergy,  revolted  against  the  renegade  Pope."  * 
Vigilius  was  not  unsensitive  to  the  opinion  of 
the  West,  and  so  now  begged  the  Emperor  to 
refer  the  decision  of  the  matter  to  a  General 
Council,    which    the   Western    Bishops  should 
also  attend.     He  also  persuaded  the  Emperor 
to  hand  back  to  him,  meantime,  his  first  official 
decision,  the  Judicatiun. 


*Milman  :   "Latin  Christianity,"  Bk.  3,  cliap.  iv. 


278  COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

Justinian  knew  Vigilius,  and  to  make  quite 
sure  of  his  subserviency,  put  him  under  oath  ; 
such  an  oath  as  the  Emperor  was  pleased  to 
dictate.  "  He  promised  in  it*  that,  heart  and 
hand  with  the  Emperor,  he  would  do  all  in  his 
power  to  carry  through  the  condemnation  of 
the  Three  Articles.  In  defence  of  them,  he 
would  neither  directly  do  nor  say  anything,  nor 
enter  into  any  secret  councils.  And  should 
any  individual  propose  to  him  anything  that 
conflicted  with  these  decisions,  anything  that 
concerned  the  Three  Articles  or  the  Faith,  or 
that  was  contrary  to  the  interests  of  the  State, 
he  would  make  the  individual  known  to  the 
Emperor,  as  well  as  all  that  he  said ;  on  condi- 
tion, however,  that  the  Emperor  should  not 
attempt  the  life  of  any  such  person,  and  out  of 
regard  for  his  sacred  office,  that  he  should  not 
betray  the  informer."*  In  551  a.d.  the  Em- 
peror summoned  the  Bishops  from  lUyria  and 
Africa  to  a  Council  at  Constantinople.  The 
Illyrian  Bishops  declined  to  attend,  and  only 
a  limited  number  of  North  African  Bishops 
obeyed  the  summons. 

Every  expedient  was  tried  to  move  the  Afri- 
cans, both  at  Constantinople  and  at  home,  to 
accept  the    Emperor's    Edict.      Turning   from 

*  Neander,  Vol.  ii.,  p.  546. 


COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPIE.  2/9 

these  again  to  Vigilius  the  Emperor  sought  to 
bring  him  once  more  to  the  condemnation  of 
the  Articles.  Disregarding  the  remonstrances 
of  the  Pope,  Justinian  issued  a  new  Edict,  still 
more  full  in  details,  more  of  a  treatise  than  of  a 
decree.  In  this  he  defended  himself  against 
the  reproach  that  his  sentence  tended  to  impair 
the  authority  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 

This  new  Edict,  Vigilius  was  required  to 
subscribe,  but  the  example  of  the  North  Afri- 
can and  1113'rian  Bishops  had  given  him  cour- 
age. He  demanded  of  the  Emperor  that  the 
Edict  should  be  revoked  ;  he  "  ought  to  wait," 
suggested  Vigilius,  "f(5r  the  common  decision 
of  the  bishops." 

He  threatened  all  who  should  receive  the  Im- 
perial Edict  with  excommunication.  As  a  re- 
sult of  this  Vigilius  was  obliged  to  betake 
himself  to  "  Sanctuary."  Here  took  place  that 
tragic  scene,  in  which  an  Imperial  officer,  at- 
tempting to  remove  him  from  the  church,  the 
Pontiff  took  refuge  under  the  altar,  and  clung 
to  its  pillars  so  firmly,  that  it  was  almost  over- 
turned upon  him.  The  emperor  promising  him 
safety,  however,  the  Pope  returned  to  Constan- 
tinople, where  he  was  treated  as  a  prisoner. 

A  second  time  he  escaped,  now  to  the  Church 
of  S.  Euphemia  at  Chalcedon.  After  many 
overtures  from  the  emperor,  he  was  persuaded 


28o  COr.VC/LS   OF   COXSTAXT/.VOPLE. 

to  return  to  Constantinople,  where  the  Fifth 
General  Council  met  in  May,  553  A.D.  This 
Council  was  attended  by  one  hundred  and 
sixty-five  bishops,  including  all  the  Eastern  Pa- 
triarchs, but  from  the  West  there  were  but  a 
few  African  bishops.  Vigilius  declined  being 
present,  partly  on  the  pretext  that  his  prede- 
cessors had  always  abstained  from  personally 
attending  General  Councils,  partly  on  the  plea 
of  illness.  *'  Every  breeze  that  came  from  the 
West  bore  to  his  ears  the  rumors  of  rebellion." 
After  the  fourth  session,  the  Council  having 
anathematized  the  person  and  writings  of  Theo- 
dore of  Mopsuestia,  Vigilius  interposed,  with  a 
second  document,  known  as  his  Cotistitutum,  in 
which  he  endeavored  to  take  a  middle  course, 
by  condemning  the  writings  which  were  in 
question,  but  without  reflecting  on  their  authors, 
even  on  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia. 

The  emperor's  patience  being  now  exhaust- 
ed, he  caused  to  be  laid  before  the  Council  the 
secret  engagements  which  Vigilius  had  made 
with  him,  and  desired  that  the  Pope  might 
be  excluded  from  the  Diptychs.  The  Coun- 
cil acted  accordingly.  After  recapitulating 
the  proceedings  of  the  Council  in  the  exam- 
ination of  the  writings  of  Theodore,  Theodoret 
and  Ibas,  and  the  grounds  on  which  they 
rested    their   condemnation   of   the   person    of 


3S< 


y  ( 


:mma' 


282  COUNCILS   OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

We,  therefore,  anathematize  the  three  before- 
mentioned  chapters,  that  is,  the  impious  Theo- 
dorus  of  Mopsuestia,  with  his  execrable  writ- 
ings, and  those  things  which  Theodoret  im- 
piously wrote,  and  the  impious  letter  which  is 
said  to  be  of  Ibas  and  their  defenders,  and  those 
who  have  written  or  do  write  in  defence  of 
them,  or  who  dare  to  say  that  they  are  correct, 
and  who  have  defended  or  attempted  to  defend 
their  impiety  with  the  names  of  the  holy  Fa- 
thers, or  the  Holy  Council  of  Chalcedon."  * 

Vigilius,  some  months  later,  made  a  humiliat- 
ing submission  to  the  decisions  of  the  Assembly, 
ascribing  his  past  differences  of  opinion  to  the 
instigation  of  the  devil.  He  repeated  this  in  a 
longer  paper  withdrawing  all  his  acts  on  the 
other  side.  After  this  submission  he  obtained 
leave  to  return  to  his  see,  and  died  in  Sicily 
on  his  progress  homeward. 

It  has  been  thought  necessary  to  go  into  all 
this  detail  respecting  the  Fifth  General  Council, 
especially  in  its  relation  to  Vigilius,  because 
the  narrative  itself  is  the  most  powerful  com- 
mentary that  can  be  written  upon  these  events, 
and  because  had  the  Council  no  special  value 
by  reason  of  its  condemnation  of  the  Three 
Chapters,  it   would   have  enormous  value  for 


*  "  Hammond  on  the  Canons,"  p.  129. 


COUNCILS   OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.  283 

what  it  suggests  respecting  the  infallibility  of 
Peter  and  his  successors.  Popes  had  before 
been  suspected  of  heresy,  e.g.,  Zephyrinus  and 
Callistus.  Liberius  had,  as  Dr.  Pusey  says, 
"  made  a  fall  miserably  complete,"  when  he  not 
only  signed  a  Sirmian  Creed,  but  declared  that 
he  spoke  "  in  true  faith "  the  "  same  as  his 
common  Lord  and  brother  Demophilus,"  de- 
claring also  to  Ursacius,  Valens,  and  Germin- 
ius,  that  "as  God  was  his  witness,"  and  "not 
compelled  by  any  constraint "  he  greeted 
them  as  "  brethren,"  *  but  Vigilius,  covered 
with  guile,  treachery,  wicked  engagements, 
and  selfish  fears,  vacillating  from  side  to  side, 
to-day  standing  out  for  right  with  the  West, 
to-morrow  declaring  that  he  had  so  done 
"by  the  craft  of  the  devil,"  is  a  strange  illus- 
tration of  the  Charisma  (if  we  may  so  speak),  by 
which  Peter  was  forever  to  "  strengthen  his 
brethren."  But  as  the  Sixth  General  Council 
will  involve  some  consideration  of  the  inerrancy 
of  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  we  reserve  further  re- 
mark upon  this  point  until  we  reach  the  treat- 
ment of  that  Council.  We  dismiss  the  further 
consideration  of  this  portion  of  the  subject 
with  the  following  words  of  Moeller:  "The 
Pontificate  of  Vigilius  marks  a  crushing  defeat 

*  "Pusey  on  the  Councils,"  pp.  170,  171. 


284  COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

of  the  development  of  the  claims  of  Rome,  If 
at  the  Fourth  CEcumenical  Council  Leo  of 
Rome  was  the  master  of  the  position,  now,  a 
century  later,  it  was  the  Byzantine  Emperor 
Justinian,  with  his  court  theology.  The  By- 
zantines now  regarded  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
only  as  one  (though  at  the  same  time  the  first 
in  rank)  of  the  Patriarchs,  on  an  equal  footing 
with  Constantinople,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and 
Jerusalem.  The  CEcumenical  Council  (the 
Fifth)  met  against  the  will  of  Rome,  and  ex- 
communicated Vigilius.  And  the  humiliated 
Vigilius  afterward  accepted  the  propositions 
of  the  Council  which  he  had  rejected,  and  in 
doing  so  found  himself  again  in  opposition  to 
the  weightiest  opinions  of  the  West."  * 

A  point  of  considerable  interest  remains  to 
be  noticed  in  connection  with  the  nth  canon  of 
the  Fifth  General  Council.  We  have  already 
considered  the  condemnation  of  Origen  by 
Justinian's  Edict ;  we  have  said  something  of 
the  man  and  of  his  famous  school,  and  we  have 
noted  that  devotion  to  him  which  led  Theodore 
Ascidas  to  precipitate  upon  the  emperor's  at- 
tention the  Three  Articles,  to  divert  further 
attention  from  Origen  and  his  opinions. 

We  now  go  on  to  remark  that  such  histpri- 

*  Moeller's  "  History  of  tlie  Christian  Church,"  p.  353. 


COUNCILS   OF   CO.ySTANTINOPLE.  285 

ans  as  Hefele,  Walch,  DoUinger,  and  Dupin  de- 
cide  that   the    fifteen    anathemas   against    Ori- 
gen,  which  are  sometimes  represented  as  pro- 
nounced by  the  Holy  Fathers  of  the  Fifth  Gen- 
eral Council  were  really  enacted  by  the  Home 
Synod  under  Mennas,  a  synod  of  course  hav- 
ing no  CEcumenical  weight  or  authority.     Du- 
pin strongly  holds  that  inasmuch  as  in  the  eight 
conferences  or  sessions  of  the   Fifth  Council, 
there  is  no  mention  made  of  any  other  business 
than  that  of  the  three  chapters,  the  affair  of  Ori- 
gen  was  not  inquired  into  by  it.    Other  writers 
point  out  that  no  mention  is  made  of  Origen's 
opinions  in  the  Edict  of  Justinian  convening  the 
Fifth  Council,  though  he  there  enumerates  the 
subjects  for  discussion.     It   has  been  thought 
also  a  suspicious  circumstance  that  the  name 
of  Origen  as  it  appears  in  the  eleventh  canon 
does  not  occur  in  its  right  chronological  order. 
The  canon  runs:  "  If  any  one  does  not  anathe- 
matize  Arius,  Eunomius,  Macedonius,  Apolli- 
naris,    Nestorius,    Eutyches,    Origen,    together 
with  their  impious  writings,  and  all  other  her- 
etics who  have  been  condemned  and  anathema- 
tized by  the  four  before-mentioned  Holy  Coun- 
cils, and  those  also  who  have  thought  or  do 
think,  like  the  before-mentioned  heretics,   and 
have  continued  or  do  continue  in  their  wicked- 
ness to   their  death,  let   them    be   anathema." 


286  COUNCILS   OF   CONSTA MTINOPLE. 

"  Even  if  we  admit,"  says  Dale,  in  his  learned 
article  in  the  "  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biogra- 
phy," "  that  the  Fifth  Council  added  the  name 
of  Origen  to  those  anathematized  by  the  four 
preceding  Councils,  it  is  difficult  to  explain  how 
or  when  the  Assembly  could  have  decided  upon 
the  preliminary  censure,  before  inserting  his 
name  in  the  condemned  list."*  De  Marca  and 
others  think  that  the  synodical  acts  as  we  have 
them  are  mutilated. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  from  allusions  made 
to  Origen's  condemnation  in  the  records  of  the 
Sixth  General  Council,  in  the  acts  of  the  Second 
Council  of  Nic^a,  and  from  the  statements  of 
contemporaries  who  it  is  claimed  had  read  the 
acts  of  the  Council,  "  there  is  sufficient  evidence 
to  deter  us  from  a  dogmatic  denial  that  the 
condemnation  of  Origen  occurred."  "  And 
without  more  convincing  proof  than  any  that 
has  hitherto  been  given  to  support  the  theory 
that  the  name  of  Origen  as  it  stands  in  the 
eleventh  canon  is  a  subsequent  interpolation 
we  must  accept,"  as  Dale  remarks,  "  the  clause 
as  it  stands. "t 

To  minds  that  appreciate  Origen's  piety, 
learning,  modesty,  good  faith,  and  habitual  sub- 

*  "Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,"  Art.  Origenistic  Con- 
troversies. 
t  Ibid. 


COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE.  28/ 

missiveness  toward  the  Church,  and-  his  con- 
fessorship  at  last,  it  is  not  a  grateful  thought 
that  his  memory  should  be  clouded  Avith  such 
a  censure,  or  even  apparent  censure,  as  that  as- 
sociated with  the  Fifth  General  Council.  Yet 
one  must  consider  certain  facts  which  may  ac- 
count at  least  in  part  for  it.  No  doubt  Origen's 
eschatological  opinions  were  his  great  offense 
in  the  minds  of  his  opponents ;  and  perhaps,  in 
view  of  the  moral  and  social  corruption  of  Ro- 
man society  in  his  day  and  in  the  days  of  his 
condemnation,  any  speculations  which  seemed 
to  minimize  the  sternness  of  God's  wrath 
against  sin  may  have  seemed,  not  only  to  the 
great  majority  of  the  Fathers  of  this  Council 
who  most  probably  believed  Origen's  opinions 
to  be  false  in  themselves,  but  even  to  those  most 
open  to  the  force  of  his  underlying  postulates, 
especially  dangerous  to  the  practical  Christian 
life  of  the  multitude.  It  was,  to  say  the  least, 
hazardous  to  depart  from  the  accustomed  tra- 
dition, language,  and  teaching  of  the  Church  as 
a  whole  in  respect  of  that  future  which  has  to 
deal  with  God's  judgments  upon  sin.  As  Pro- 
fessor Mivart  suggests,  it  would  have  been 
"  fatally  misleading  "  to  men  in  the  old  pagan 
days  of  the  world,  to  have  admitted  much  that 
we  to-day  may  properly  and  safely  admit,  as  to 
the  elements  of  truth  and  righteousness  in  the 


288  COUNCILS    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE, 

religions  of  Greece  and  Rome,  to  admit  that 
"  Zeus  and  Athene,  Ares  and  Aphrodite  "  were 
"  expressions  of  the  divine."  That  "  pagan  rites 
and  ceremonials  were  in  their  measure  good," 
or  that  the  "  worship  of  the  heathen  "  was 
"  an  acceptable  service."  In  the  same  way  a 
method  of  teaching  respecting  the  restitution 
of  all  things,  which  might  be  misleading  to  the 
multitude,  and  might  relax  Christian  energy, 
may  justly  have  been  thought,  even  by  those 
most  friendly  to  Origen,  censurable  practically, 
as  likely  to  result  in  great  evils,  and  may  thus 
have  been  thought  grave  enough  to  bring  upon 
Origen  the  condemnation  of  the  Church.  It 
must  also  be  remembered  that  Origen  himself 
was  anxious  to  keep  his  opinions  as  to  the  non- 
eternity  of  punishment  from  the  multitude. 
One  is  reminded  in  this  connection  of  instruc- 
tions said  to  have  been  given  by  Ignatius  Lo- 
yola to  Salmeron  and  Lainez  as  he  dispatched 
them  as  Papal  theologians  to  the  Council  of 
Trent.  "  As  to  the  course  they  were  to  pursue 
in  the  Council,  and  especially  in  relation  to 
opinions  broached  there  by  eminent  persons, 
and  sustained  by  weighty  arguments,  by  cita- 
tions from  the  Fathers,  and  by  passages  of 
Holy  Scripture,  Loyola  enjoined  upon  them,  in 
most  peremptory  terms,  an  exact  adherence  to 
the  decisions  of  the  Church,  as  already  under- 


COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE.  289 

Stood.  Strong  reasons,  nay,  reasons  irresistibly 
strong,  although  they  may  make  an  opinion 
probable,  do  not  m.ake  it  Catholic,  and  there- 
fore do  not  avail  to  recommend  it  in  any  de- 
gree to  our  approval  and  acceptance."* 

These  words,  uttered  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, may  interpret  the  minds  of  many  of  the 
Fathers  of  the  Fifth  General  Council.  They 
certainly  do  suggest  a  possible  mode  of  vicAv- 
ing  the  question  at  issue,  and  the  obligations 
to  authority  and  tradition,  in  the  face  even  of 
probable  opinion.  It  is  also  to  be  considered, 
that  it  has  pleased  Almighty  God,  in  conde- 
scension to  the  inadequacy  of  human  language, 
and  to  the  limitations  of  man's  situation  gener- 
ally, to  impart  divine  truth  economically  and 
not  abstractly.  To  that  economical  method,  it 
is  doubtless  meant  that  the  Church  should  ad- 
here; maintaining  in  general,  and  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  many,  that  unity  and  economy  of 
teaching,  which  our  Lord  in  His  wisdom  has 
seen  fit  to  impose  upon  His  Church. 

Bishop  Westcott,  however,  well  says  respect- 
ing Origen  that  "  with  all  his  faults  and  short- 
comings, he  is  the  greatest  representative  of  a 
type  of  Greek  Christian  thought  which  has  not 
yet  done  its  work  in  the  West.     By  his  sym- 

*  Isaac  Taylor's  "Loyola  and  Jesuitism,"  p.  175. 
19 


290  COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

pathy  with  all  effort,  by  his  largeness  of  view, 
by  his  combination  of  a  noble  morality  with  a 
deep  mysticism,  he  indicates,  if  he  does  not 
bring  the  true  remedy  for  the  evils  of  that 
Africanism  which  has  been  dominant  in  Europe 
since  the  time  of  Augustine."* 

Pope  Vigilius  was  succeeded  in  the  Roman 
Pontificate  by  his  Archdeacon  Pelagius,  who, 
adhering  to  the  Council,  and  assisted  by  Narses, 
enforced  its  acceptance  by  deprivation,  banish- 
ment, and  other  penalties. 

In  the  West  the  dangerous  character  of  Theo- 
dore of  Mopsuestia's  dicta  was  little  realized, 
nor  did  it  estimate  the  support  a  lingering 
Nestorianism  found  in  his  authority.  The  con- 
demnation of  Theodoret  and  Ibas  was  regarded 
as  distinctly  dishonoring  to  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon,  and  as  endangering  its  authority.  The 
decisions  of  the  Fifth  Council  were  therefore 
largely  resisted.  The  bishops  of  the  Italian 
diocese  separated  from  Rome  on  this  account, 
and  though  Milan  and  Ravenna,  through  stress 
of  circumstances,  were  soon  forced  to  seek 
reconciliation  with  Rome  and  the  Empire,  the 
Metropolitans  of  Aquileia,  with  the  Istrian  bish- 
ops, remained  out  of  communion  with  Rome  for 
nearly  a  hundred  and  fifty  years,  half  the  time 


■Religious  Thought  in  the  West,"  Westcott,  p.  246. 


CVUN'CILS  OF  COySTAMTII^OTLF:.  29I 

which  has  elapsed  since  the  rupture  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  with  the  Church  of  England. 
Ultimatel3%  however,  the  West  fell  into  line 
with  the  East,  and  the  Second  General  Council 
of  Constantinople  came  to  be  received  and  rev- 
erenced as  an  Oecumenical  Synod. 

The  Third  General  Council  of  Constantinople, 
generally  known  as  the  Sixth  General  Council, 
was  assembled  by  the  Emperor  Constantine 
Posronatus,  A.D.  680.  It  was  called  to  termi- 
nate  new  divisions  which  had  sprung  up  in  the 
Church  through  the  heresy  of  the  Monothe- 
lites.  The  distinctive  tenet  of  these  heretics 
was  that  "  the  divine  and  human  natures  of 
Christ  did  not  possess  separate  Divine  and  hu- 
man wills,  but  one  will  partly  human  and  partly 
divine."  This  heresy  was  closely  allied  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Monophysite  Severus  of  An- 
tioch,  in  whose  theory  "  the  qualities  of  the  hu- 
man nature  were  all  retained  in  our  Lord  after 
the  Incarnation,  although  that  nature  was  in 
Him  so  amalgamated  with  the  Divine  Being, 
that  it  could  not  be  said  to  possess  any  being 
or  identity  of  its  own.  Thus  the  Monophysite 
conception  of  Christ's  Person  settled  into  that 
of  a  theandric  or  composite  nature,  analogous 
to  that  composite  action  of  His  Person,  which 
later  divines  have  called  a  Theandric  Opera- 


292  COUNCILS   OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

tion."*  An  obvious  objection  to  this  view,  at 
once  is  seen  to  be,  as  has  been  remarked,  that 
"  belief  in  a  composite  nature  is  inconsistent 
with  the  Nicene  Creed,  which  asserts  that  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  of  one  substance  with  the 
Father,  and  since  the  Father  is  not  of  a  com- 
posite nature,  to  declare  the  Son  to  be  of  such 
a  nature,  is  to  declare  him  to  be  of  a  different 
substance  from  the  Father."  Monothelitism 
owes  its  distinct  formulation  to  Theodore,  Bish- 
op of  Pharan  in  Arabia,  who  taught  that  "all 
the  acts  of  Christ  proceeded  from  one  principle, 
originating  in  the  Word,  and  operating  through 
the  human  soul  and  body.  Hence,  though  the 
Logos  and  the  manhood  were  distinct  natures, 
they  were  both  acted  upon  by  one  and  the  same 
ivep<yeia.,  and  there  being  one  activity,  there  was 
one  will  by  which  it  was  moved,  that  will  being 
Divine."  f 

Accounts  differ  as  to  the  way  in  which  the 
subject  came  before  the  Emperor  Heraclius. 
That  which  is  based  upon  the  letters  of  Sergius 
of  Constantinople  to  Cyrus,  Bishop  of  Phasis, 
and  to  Honorius  of  Rome,  is  the  narrative  we 
shall  follow. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  at  the  beginning  of 


*  Blunt's  "Dictionary  of  Sects,  Heresies,"  etc.,  in  loc. 
f  Ibid. 


COUNCILS    OF   COXSTANTIXOPLE.  293 

his  Eastern  campaigns,  Heraclius  encountered 
in  Armenia  one  Paulus,  a  bishop,  holding  the 
doctrines  of  Severus.  The  emperor  had  a  dis- 
cussion with  him,  in  which  mention  was  made 
of  "  one  operation "  in  Christ.  Some  four 
years  later,  HeracHus  mentioned  his  dispute 
with  Paukis  in  the  presence  of  Cyrus,  Bishop  of 
Phasis,  who  professed  uncertainty  whether  one 
or  two  operations  should  be  ascribed  to  the  In- 
carnate Word.  By  the  emperor's  direction, 
he  wrote  to  Sergius,  Patriarch  of  Constantino- 
ple, inquiring  which  doctrine  was  correct,  and 
whether  any  of  the  Fathers  had  written  of 
"one  operation."  Sergius  sent  him  what  pur- 
ported to  be  a  letter  of  the  Patriarch  Mennas, 
in  which  our  Lord  was  said  to  have  "  one  will 
and  one  life-giving  operation."  The  next  )^ear 
Cyrus  was  translated  to  the  Patriarchate  of 
Alexandria,  the  stronghold  of  Monophysitism, 
with  a  view  of  bringing  about  a  union  upon  the 
compromise  of  the  one  operation.  Cyrus  at  once 
held  a  Council,  in  which  terms  of  reunion  were 
arrancjed  in  nine  articles,  the  seventh  of  which 
distinctly  declared  that  "  our  Lord  wrought  the 
acts  appertaining  both  to  God  and  to  man,  by 
one  Theandric  (divinely  human)  operation." 
This  canon  was  protested  against  by  a  learned 
monk  named  Sophronius,  then  at  Alexandria, 
who  afterward  became  a  prominent  figure  in 


294  COUNCILS    OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

this  controversy.  Sophronius  declared  that 
this  doctrine  revived  the  ApoUinarian  heresy, 
which  made  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ  to  be 
the  soul  of  his  human  nature.  Sophronius  re- 
paired to  Constantinople  with  letters  to  Sergius, 
who,  failing  to  obtain  from  Sophronius  any  pas- 
sages from  the  Fathers  distinctly  speaking  of 
two  operations,  enjoined  silence  upon  him  and 
upon  Cyrus ;  silence  in  respect  of  the  use  of 
either  of  the  expressions,  one  operation  or  two 
operations.  In  634  A.D.  Sophronius  became 
Patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  and  so  was  in  a  position 
to  become  a  formidable  opponent  of  the  new 
doctrine,  and  likely  to  reopen  the  controversy. 
Sergius  wrote  accordingly  a  letter  to  Honorius 
of  Rome,  which,  with  the  Pope's  reply,  remains 
as  one  of  the  most  noted,  and  in  respect  of  the 
Papal  See,  one  of  the  most  important  in  the 
history  of  the  Church. 

Before  entering  upon  the  consideration  of  the 
letters  of  Sergius  and  Honorius,  it  may  be  well 
to  say  that  the  Monothelite  position  had  its  at- 
traction for  Heraclius  as  a  sort  of  middle  term, 
affording  a  platform  of  union  between  the  Cath- 
olic and  the  Monophysite  communities.  Not- 
withstanding its  fair  surface,  however,  "  it  was 
the  last  link  of  a  long  chain  of  efforts,  beginning 
with  Apollinaris,  or  rather  with  the  Docetie,  to 
find  something  in  which  the  manhood  assumed 


COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE.  295 

by  our  Lord  might  differ  in  nature  from  the 
humanity  inherited  from  Adam.  Sin  only  ex- 
cepted, he  was  made  in  all  things  like  unto  us. 
But  *  sin '  might  be  thought  identical  with  the 
sinful  ivill  in  man,  and  the  '  sinful  will '  might 
easily  be  confounded  with  the  human  will.  To 
deny  '  sin '  therefore  in  Christ  seemed  to  carry 
with  it  a  denial  of  '  the  human  will '  in  Christ. 
Furthermore,  it  was  argued,  the  will  pertains 
to  man's  personality,  rather  than  to  his  nature. 
When  our  Lord,  therefore,  assumed  man's  nat- 
ure. He  did  not  take  his  will ;  the  will  of  the 
Word  acted  in  and  through  the  two  natures,  by 
what  Avas  called  a  Theandric  Operation."  * 

Sophronius  almost  alone,  was  clear-minded 
enough  to  see  that  "  to  deny  the  human  will 
in  Christ,  or  to  deny  even  the  natural  Opera- 
tion of  that  will,  was  to  detract  from  his  per- 
fect humanity,  and  to  bring  in  the  error  of 
Apollinaris  under  another  form."  f  There  had 
been  no  question  about  the  existence  and  opera- 
tion of  the  Divine  Will,  and  the  question  was 
"  I,  whether  there  was  a  human  will  also;  and 
2,  whether,  if  there  was  a  human  will,  it  was 
not  the  mere  instrument  of  the  Divine  will,  so 
that  it  never  operated  or  acted  of  itself.  But 
our  Lord's  human  nature  would  be  imperfect 


Mahan,  p.  555.  f  Ibid.,  p.  556. 


296  COUNCILS   OF   C ONSTA NTINOP LE. 

without  a  human  will,  and  the  human  will  is 
a  free  will ;  therefore  our  Lord's  human  will 
wrought  (operated)  independently — i.e.  He  had 
two  wills  and  two  operators."* 

Bruce  in  his  "  Humiliation  of  Christ,"  rather 
scoffs  at  the  Monothelite  controversy  as  be- 
longing to  what  he  calls  the  era  of  "  anatomical 
Christology."  f  Yet  one  can  see  how  the 
whole  question  of  the  truth  of  the  Incarnation 
of  God  in  man's  nature  was  bound  up  with  it. 
Archbishop  Trench  much  more  justly  esti- 
mates its  importance  when  he  writes  "  The  con- 
troversy of  the  Church  with  the  Monothelites 
in  the  seventh  century,  a  conflict  in  which  com- 
monly so  little  interest  is  taken,  even  by  stu- 
dents of  Church  history,  was  one  for  life  and 
death.  The  denial  of  a  human  will  in  Christ 
was  in  fact  a  denial  of  His  Sacrifice."  f  Blunt 
has  very  strikingly  observed,  "  As  it  was  part  of 
Christ's  work,  that  He  should  learn  obedience 
through  suffering,  so  the  subjugation  of  His 
free  human  will  to  perfect  obedience  to  the  Di- 
vine Will,  is  shown  to  be  the  very  climax  of 
His  work,  a  fact  which  is  in  itself  an  entire 
confutation  of  the  heresy  of  the  Monothe- 
lites." X 


♦Cutts's  "  Turning  Points  of  Church  History,"  p.  242,  note. 

\  Hulsean  Lectures,  p.  225,  n. 

%  "  Dictionary  of  Doctninal  and  Historical  Theology." 


COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE.  297 

Sophronius  then  was  right  in  not  permitting 
the  question  to  die.     He  felt  strongly  about  it, 
for  he  saw  so  clearly  what  it  meant  in  its  final 
issues.    Sergius,  as  w^e  have  seen,  took  the  alarm 
when    Sophronius    became     Patriarch    of    the 
Holy  City,  and  wrote   to  Honorius,  detailing 
the   previous   history  of   the  question.     These 
details   have   been    already   noted.     Honorius, 
however,  lays   much  stress  upon  the  concilia- 
tion brought  about  by  Cyrus,  at  Alexandria,  be- 
tween the  Monophysites  and  the  Catholics,  on 
the  basis  of  the  one  Theandric  operation.     In 
Sergius's  view  "  it  would  be  cruel  disputatious- 
ly  to  disturb  the  union  which  had  been  scarcely 
established,  for  the  sake  of  a  question  which 
did  not  endanger  pure  doctrine,  as  must  be  the 
case,  should  the  words  iiia  evep^eia  (one  opera- 
tion) be  struck  out  of  the  formula,  agreeably  to 
the  command  of  Sophronius.     Sergius  had  dis- 
cussed   the  matter  with  him,  and   Sophronius 
had  not  been  able  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  a 
two-fold  ivepyeia  (operation)  either  by  patristic, 
or  synodal  testimonies.     To  Cyrus  he  had  writ- 
ten, advising  him,  in  consideration  of  the  peace 
which  had  been  established,  to  allow  no  one  to 
teach  either  the  unity  or  the  duality  of  the  ivep- 
jeiac  (operations),  but  to  limit  them  to   setting 
forth    one   and   the    same    Only-begotten    Son, 
who  worked    everything,  both  that  which  be- 


298  COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

fitted  God,  and  that  which  befitted  man.     .     .     . 
The   formula  //./a   eVep7eta   (one    operation),  al- 
though employed   by   some   of   the    Holy  Fa- 
thers, wears  still  a  strange  face  to  some,  and 
excites  the  suspicion  that  there  may  be  an  in- 
tention of  leading  them    into  Monophysitism ; 
it  would  therefore  be  better  avoided.     The  for- 
mula  Zvo  evep^eiat  (two  operations)   had    never 
been  employed   by  any  recognized  teacher  of 
the  Church,  and  is  a  stumbling-block  to  many, 
and  it  should  be  the  more  strictly  avoided  as 
the    assumption    of    two    evkp^eiai   (operations) 
necessarily  involves  the  positing  of  two  wills, 
and  that  of  two  opposed  wills.     It  is,  for  exam- 
ple, as  though  the  Logos  partially  willed  the 
sufferings,  and  the  humanity  resisted  His  will, 
which  would  end  with  the  recognition  of  two 
subjects,  choosing  opposite  courses  ;  for  there 
cannot  be  two  wills,  in  reference  to  the  same 
thing,  at  the  very  same  time,  in  one  and   the 
same  subject.    To  assert  that  would  be  to  sepa- 
rate the  humanity  of  Christ  from  His    Deity, 
and  to  abolish  the  Incarnation."* 

Honorius   answered    Sergius  on   the    whole 
approvingly.      Both  formulas   he  regarded  as 


*  Dorner's  "Person  of  Christ,"  Div.  2,  vol.  i.,  PP-  174-75-  (^""^ 
original  letters  of  Sergius  and  Honorius  vide  Labbe's  "Conci- 
lia," vol.  vii.,  p.  951  et  seq.) 


COUNCILS   OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.  299 

equally  and  solely  fitted  to  stir  ■  up  useless 
school  controversies,  but  differed  from  Sergius, 
who  evidently  gave  the  preference  to  the  /^/a 
evep'^eta  in  not  finding  it  suitable,  whether  it  re- 
ferred to  the  natures  or  to  the  personality ;  for 
the  personality  has  not  merely  one  or  two,  but 
many  activities,  and  the  natures  act,  each  in  its 
own  way  ;  it  is  therefore  right  to  take  no  ac- 
count of  the  ivipyeca  (the  activity,  mode  of 
action),  but,  on  the  contrary,  to  go  back  to  the 
will  of  Christ.*  He,  however,  echoes  the  gen- 
eral opinions  of  Sergius,  and  declares,  "  Where- 
fore we  confess  one  will  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  because  clearly  by  the  Deity  was  as- 
sumed our  nature,  not  the  sin  in  it,  clearly  (was 
assumed)  the  nature  which  was  created  before 
sin,  not  that  which  after  the  fall  became  cor- 
rupt." t 

In  a  second  letter  of  Honorius  he  says,  "  In- 
stead of  teaching  one  operation,  or  mode  of 
operation,  we  ought  rather  to  teach  that  there 
is  One  Operator,  Christ,  who  works  by  means 
of  both  natures ;  and  in  place  of  teaching  that 
there  are  two  operations,  we  should  teach  that 
in  the  one  Person  there  are  two  natures,  each 
performing  what  is  appropriate  to  it." 


*Dorner's  "Person  of  Christ,"  Div.  2,  vol.  i.,  pp.  174,  175. 
f  Labbe's  "Concilia"  in  loc. 


300  COUNCILS    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

Milman  credits  Honorius  with  misunder- 
standing the  question,  though  he  admits  that 
the  Pope  in  words  declared  himself  a  Monothe- 
lite.  But  "the  unity  which  he  asserted  was  not 
an  identity,  but  a  harmony."  Honorius's  main 
argument  was  "  that  the  sinless  human  nature 
of  Christ,  being  ignorant  of  that  other  law  in 
the  members,  warring  against  the  law  of  the 
mind,  there  could  be  no  conflicting  or  adverse 
will  in  the  God-Man.  The  Pope's  words  were, 
however,  the  language  of  Monothelism,  and 
to  them  he  was  bound  down  with  inexorable 
rigor.   •• 

Sophronius  had  been  made  Patriarch  in  634 
A.D.  He  died  in  637,  but  before  death  he  led 
one  of  his  Suffragans,  Stephen,  Bishop  of  Dor, 
to  Mount  Calvary,  and  there  pledged  him  to  re- 
pair to  Rome,  and  never  to  rest  until  he  should 
have  obtained  a  condemnation  of  the  Monothe- 
lite  doctrine. 

The  agitation  continuing,  the  Emperor  in 
639  A.D.  issued  his  famous  Ecthesis.  This  docu- 
ment, while  forbidding  the  use  of  the  contro- 
verted expressions,  stated  that  the  term  "  single 
operation "  caused  trouble  to  some,  and  the 
term   "  two  operations  "  gave  offence  to  many. 

The  Ecthesis  was  indignantly  rejected  by  the 


*  Milman's  "  Latin  Christianity,"  Bk,  4,  Chap.  vi. 


COUNCILS   OF   COXSTANTINOPLE.  301 

Roman  Bishop.  Honorius  had  died  in  638,  and 
had  been  succeeded  by  Severinus,  whose  pon- 
tificate lasted  but  a  few  months.  John  IV. 
succeeded  him,  and  with  the  aid  of  a  Council, 
rejected  the  formulary.  Heraclius  therefore 
wrote  John,  disavowing  the  authorship  of  the 
Ecthcsis2in^  attributing  it  to  Sergius.  Herachus 
died  in  641,  and  was  succeeded  by  Constantine 
III.  and  Heracleonas,  and  they  by  Constans  II. 
Sergius  had  meantime  been  succeeded  by  Pyr- 
rhus,  a  Monothelite,  who  for  a  time  was  re- 
claimed to  the  Faith  by  Maximus,  a  noble  By- 
zantine, only  to  relapse  into  Monothelism,  and 
to  be  excommunicated  by  Theodore,  now  the 
reigning  Pontiff. 

In  648  Constans  put  forth  a  new  formulary, 
intended  to  supersede  the  EctJiesis,  and  known 
by  the  name  of  the  Typus.  This  document  was 
in  tone  less  theological  than  the  EctJiesis,  but 
forbade  the  discussion  of  the  controversy.  To 
the  Roman  party  silence  seemed  treason  to 
truth.  Pope  Martin  I.,  now  on  the  Pontifical 
throne,  with  the  concurrence  of  a  hundred  and 
five  Bishops  at  the  first  Lateran  Council  (a.d. 
649),  declared  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  two 
united  Wilis  and  two  Operations,  the  term  "  one 
Theandric  Operation "  being  censured  by  the 
Council,  while  Theodore  of  Pharan,  Cyrus,  Ser- 
gius, Pyrrhus,  and  Paul,  the  Ecthesis  and  the  7j/- 


302  COUNCILS   OF   C0NSTANTIA~0PL1E; 

puSy  were  all  included  in  a  sweeping  anathema. 
In  653  the  Imperial  Exarch  seized  Pope  Martin, 
carried  him  to  Constantinople,  paraded  and  im- 
prisoned him  there,  and  finally  banished  him 
to  Cherson,  where  he  died.  After  a  lull  in  the 
controversy  for  a  while,  it  broke  out  again  in 
the  reign  of  Constantine  IV,  (Pogonatus).  A 
second  Council  was  held  in  Rome,  678,  on  the 
Monothelite  question,  under  the  pontificate  of 
Agatho.  One  hundred  and  twenty-five  Prelates 
attended  this,  and  among  them  was  notably  our 
English  Wilfred,  of  York.  Monothelism  was 
again  condemned,  and  a  letter  was  sent  to  the 
Emperor  on  the  subject,  intended  to  serve  a 
like  purpose  with  that  of  Leo  to  Flavian,  in  the 
Eutychian  controversy. 

Constantine  now  determined  to  summon  an 
(Ecumenical  Synod,  and  consequently  con- 
vened the  Third  General  Council  of  Con- 
stantinople, commonly  called  the  Sixth  CEcu- 
menical  Council.  Its  sessions  were  eighteen 
in  number,  and  lasted  from  November  7,  680, 
to  December  16,  681.  At  the  earlier  assem- 
blies the  number  of  Bishops  was  small,  but 
gradually  rose  to  nearly  two  hundred.  The 
proceedings  of  this  Council  were  marked  by 
an  unusual  impartiality  and  decorum.  At  the 
eighth  session  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople 
proclaimed  his   adhesion   to   the   judgment  of 


COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE.         303 

Agatho  and  the  Roman  Synod.  The  Bishops 
of  his  Patriarchate  followed  his  example.  After 
many  incidents  of  interest,  which  cannot  here 
be  recounted,  "  the  Monothelites  were  con- 
demned as  holding  a  heresy  akin  to  that  of 
Apollinarius,  Severus,  and  Themistius,  and  as 
destroying  the  perfection  of  our  Lord's  hu- 
manity by  denying  it  a  will  and  an  operation." 
The  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  was  laid  down 
according  to  the  earlier  decisions  of  the  Church, 
and  to  this  was  added,  "  We  in  like  manner, 
agreeably  to  the  teaching  of  the  holy  Fathers, 
declare  that  in  Him  "  (our  Lord)  "  there  are 
two  natural  wills  and  two  operations,  without 
division,  change,  separation,  or  confusion.  And 
these  natural  wills  are  not  contrary,  as  impious 
heretics  pretend,  but  the  human  follows  the 
Divine  and  Almighty  will,  not  resisting  or  op- 
posing it,  but  rather  being  subject  to  it ;  for,  ac- 
cording to  the  most  wise  Athanasius,  it  was 
needful  that  the  will  of  the  flesh  should  be  moved, 
but  that  it  should  be  subjected  to  the  Divine 
will.  As  this  flesh,  although  deified,  was  not 
destroyed  by  His  Godhead,  so  too,  his  human 
will,  although  deified,  was  not  destroyed."  * 

In  an  earlier  part  of  the  "  Definition  of  Faith  " 
were  these  important   and  memorable  words : 


*  See  "Definition  of  Faith,"  Hammond's  Translation. 


304         COUNCILS   OF   CONSTAMTINOPLE. 

"  As  the  author  of  evil,  who  in  the  beginning 
availed  himself  of  the  aid  of  the  Serpent,  and 
by  it  brought  the  poison  of  death  upon  the 
human  race,  has  not  desisted,  but  in  like  manner 
now,  having  found  suitable  instruments  for 
working  out  his  will  (we  mean  Theodorus,  who 
was  Bishop  of  Pharan,  Sergius,  Pjrrhus,  Paul, 
and  Peter,  who  were  Presidents  of  this  Royal 
City,  and  morever  Honorius,  who  was  Pope  of 
the  Elder  Rome,  Cyrus,  Bishop  of  Alexandria, 
Macairius,  who  was  lately  President  of  Antioch, 
and  Stephen  his  disciple),  has  actively  employed 
them  in  raising  up  for  the  whole  Church  the 
stumbling-blocks  of  One  Will  and  One  Opera- 
tion in  the  two  natures  of  Christ  our  True  God, 
One  of  the  Holy  Trinity,"  etc.  In  the  thir- 
teenth Actio  of  the  Council,  these  further 
words  will  be  found :  "  And  with  them  we 
anathematize  and  cast  out  of  the  Holy  Catho- 
lic Church,  Honorius,  who  was  Pope  of  the  El- 
der Rome,  because  we  have  found,  through  his 
letters  to  Sergius,  that  he  followed  his  opinion 
in  all  respects,  and  confirmed  his  impious  dog- 
mas." This  anathema  was  repeated  in  sub- 
sequent acts  of  the  Council,  in  the  Synodal 
letter  to  Pope  Agatho,  and  in  each  of  these 
acts  the  Papal  Legates  took  part,  and  signed 
their  names.  A  sixth  repetition  of  this  anath- 
ema took  place  in  the   Edict  of   the  Emperor 


COUNCILS    OF   COXSTANTINOPLE.  305 

embodying  the  action  of  the  Council.  Pope 
Leo  the  Second  concurred  in  the  Anathema 
against  Honorius  by  name,  speaking  of  him 
as  one  "  who,  instead  of  laboring  to  keep  the 
Apostolic  Church  pure  by  the  teaching  of 
Apostolic  tradition,  suffered  it,  the  immaculate, 
to  be  polluted  through  his  profane  betrayal." 
The  anathema  of  Honorius  was  repeated  in  the 
Quinisext  Council,  in  the  Second  Council  of 
Nice  (sometimes  called  the  Seventh  General 
Council)  and  in  that  which  Rome  recognized 
as  the  eighth.  It  was  also  very  notably  in- 
corporated into  the  Breviary,  and  there  re- 
mained for  a  thousand  years.  The  anathema 
was  recognized  in  other  directions,  which  we 
need  not  here  specify. 

This  anathema  gives  unique  importance  to 
this  Sixth  General  Council.  The  appearance 
made  by  Vigilius  in  the  events  connected  with 
the  Fifth  Council,  was  evil  enough  and  sugges- 
tive enough  ;  that  made  by  the  letters  and  dog- 
matic determinations  of  Honorius,  before  the 
Sixth  CEcumenical  Synod,  is  most  final  and 
conclusive  in  its  bearing  upon  the  necessary  in- 
fallibility of  the  Roman  Pontiff.  The  teaching 
of  the  Roman  Church  of  to-day  is,  that  our 
Lord  has  granted,  by  way  of  a  special  grace, 
to  S.  Peter  and  his  successors  in  the  See  of 
Rome,  "that  infallibility  with  which  the  Divine 
20 


306  COUNCILS    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

Redeemer  willed  that  His  Church  should  be 
endowed,  for  defining  doctrine  regarding  faith 
and  morals,"  and  that  this  has  always  been  a 
part  of  the  faith  (the  language  of  the  Constitu- 
tion/^<r?j-/'^r  Aitcrniis  runs  "therefore  faithfully 
adhering  to  the  tradition  received  from  the  be- 
ginning of  the  Christian  Faith  .  .  .  we 
teach  and  define,  that  it  is  a  dogma  divinely  re- 
vealed, etc.").  The  inference  therefore  must 
be,  that  no  Pope  has  ever  erred  or  can  err,  but 
that  his  pronouncements,  whenever  uttered  ex 
cathedra  in  his  office  of  pastor  and  doctor  of 
the  Universal  Church,  are  infallible,  irreform- 
able  of  themselves,  absolutely  and  necessarily 
true,  and  must  ever  have  been  so. 

In  view  of  these  latter-day  pretensions,  the 
anathematization  of  Pope  Honorius  I.  by  the 
Sixth  General  Council,  has  become  a  subject 
of  sore  difficult}^  to  the  Roman  theologians. 
Every  possible  argument  has  been  adduced  to 
evacuate  the  anathema  of  its  force.  Men  have 
gone  so  far  as  to  deny  that  Plonorius  was  anath- 
ematized ;  to  assert  that  all  the  documents, 
Greek  and  Latin,  Acts  of  Councils,  and  Popes' 
letters  which  declare  it,  have  been  forged. 
Others  have  affirmed  the  orthodoxy  of  Honori- 
us's  letters,  in  the  face  of  the  Council's  careful 
consideration  and  analysis  of  them,  and  in  the 
face   of  Pope  Leo's  admission   that    Honorius 


COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE.         307 

had  defiled  the  Immaculate  See  through  his 
profane  betrayal.  It  has  been  claimed  again  that 
he  was  unjustly  condemned  ;  that  the  Council 
was  mistaken  as  to  dogmatic  fact,  etc.,  etc. 

The  only  possible  plea  for  Honorius  is  the 
one  which  is  most  generally  made,  that  his  let- 
ters were  not  ex  catJicdra,  and  hence  do  not 
involve  the  point  of  the  Pope's  dogmatic  In- 
fallibility, as  defined  by  the  Vatican  Council. 
As  to  this  point  it  is  only  necessary  to  note 
that  there  is  among  Roman  theologians  no 
agreement  as  to  what  constitutes  an  ex  eathcdra 
utterance.  Meantime  we  must  not  abdicate 
common  sense  in  any  interpretation  of  "  ex 
cathedra^'  and  the  obvious  rational  meaning  of 
the  phrase  must  be,  that  whatever  the  Pope  ut- 
ters as  Bishop  of  Rome,  after  proper  thought 
and  reflection,  and  in  a  solemn  manner  offi- 
cially, and  for  the  instruction  of  the  faithful,  in 
respect  of  faith  and  morals,  must  be  ex  catJiedra. 

It  is  taught  by  some  minimizers  of  this  doc- 
trine that  only  Encyclicals  addressed  formally 
to  the  whole  Church,  are  ex  cathedra.  Now  it 
is  a  very  well  known  fact  that  such  documents, 
as  a  rule,  are  not  drawn  up  by  the  Pontiffs 
themselves.  The  thinking  which  they  repre- 
sent is  not  that  of  the  Pope's  own  mind,  but, 
rather  the  conclusions  of  the  theologians  whom 
he  consults.     It  is  a   notorious  fact,  respecting 


308  COUNCILS    OF    CONSTANTINOPLE. 

the  late  Pius  IX.,  that  he  was  personally  in- 
capable of  so  learned  a  production  as  the  Syl- 
labus. Celestine  V.  resigned  the  Papacy,  be- 
cause of  recognized  incapacity  for  its  duties, 
even  though  it  is  said  that  miracles  were 
wrought  during  his  journey  to  his  coronation. 
The  Papal  Infallibility  is  a  personal  endowment. 
It  has  never  been  taught  that  it  is  transferable 
to  others,  and  therefore  it  is  not  possible  of 
residence  in  the  Papal  theologians. 

And  surely  when  looked  at  in  a  common- 
sense  way,  if  any  utterances  ever  were,  or  ever 
should  have  been,  ex  cathedra  the  letters  of 
Honorius  to  Sergius  were  or  should  have  been 
so.  The  subject  was  the  greatest  of  all  possible 
themes,  the  Incarnation  of  God  in  humanity; 
and  the  whole  Church  was  stirred  by  the  issues 
relating  to  it,  with  which  the  letters  of  Hono- 
rius were  concerned.  Constantinople,  Alexan- 
dria, Jerusalem,  even  England,  were  interest- 
ed in  it ;  the  integrity  of  the  faith  itself  was 
at  issue.  Surely  there  never  was  an  occasion 
when  it  was  more  certainly  the  Roman  Pontiff's 
duty  to  God,  to  the  Church,  and  to  the  World 
to  use  every  gift  and  light,  natural  and  super- 
natural, for  delivering  a  right  judgment.  And 
Honorius  did  not  write  in  a  light  or  trifling 
or  off-hand  or  unofficial  manner.  He  decided 
authoritatively  "  for  the  instruction  and  knowl- 


COUNCILS    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE.         3^9 

edge  of  those  who  (were)  in  perplexity."  Not- 
withstanding all  these  solemn  circumstances, 
both  he  and  his  opinions  were  anathematized 
as  heretical. 

Whether,  however,  he  was  justly  or  unjustly 
condemned  ;  whether  he  was  rightly  judged  or 
was  misunderstood  ;  whether  he  wrote  ex  cathe- 
dra or  not,  he  was  as  a  matter  of  fact  anathem- 
tized  as  a  heretic  ;  and  his  condemnation  bears 
witness  to  this  certain  fact,  that  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  seventh  century,  a  General  Council 
of  the  Universal  Church  manifestly  knew  of  no 
reason  why  a  Roman  Pontiff  should  not  teach 
heresy;  and  that  Council  really  beHeved  one 
recently  living  to  have  done  so.     This  point  it 
is  impossible  to  escape.     No  special  pleadings 
or   subterfuges  of  argument  can  evacuate  the 
anathema  of   the  Council  of   this  significance ; 
and  hence  the  Roman  authorities  might  as  well 
ask  educated  men  to  believe  that  Oliver  Crom- 
well  was   Emperor   of  France,   as  to  demand 
their  acceptance  of  the  tenet  as  dc  fide  that  the 
Universal  Church  has  always  believed  the  Ro- 
man Pontiffs,  even  speaking  ex  cathedra,  to  be  of 
necessity  infallible.     Rome  placed  the  last  fatal 
barrier  between  herself  and  the  intelligence  of 
men  who  are  not  carried  away  by  despair,  or 
by  what  Mr.  Gladstone  has  memorably  called 
"pious  appetite,"    when  the  Vatican   Council 


3IO         COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

made  this  dogma  a  necessary  part  of  the  Ro- 
man Creed.  There  are  many  men  to  whom 
the  Council  of  Trent,  and  its  special  dogmas, 
present  no  insuperable  difficulties.  Even  the 
Decree  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  Mary 
is  speculatively  within  the  acceptance  of  many 
educated  minds,  but  the  principle  of  the  ex 
cathedra  infallibility  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  as 
an  integral  part  of  the  deposit  of  the  Faith  and 
as  always  believed  by  the  Universal  Church, 
is  so  impossible,  historically,  that  only  by  an 
abnormal  process  of  thinking,  or  by  ceasing  to 
think  at  all  of  things  as  they  really  are  and 
really  have  been,  can  men  accept  this  latest 
dogma  of  the  Roman  obedience. 

I  refrain  from  here  saying  anything  of  the 
logical  results  of  this  dogma  upon  the  life  of 
nations,  or  upon  the  providential  growth  and 
education  of  the  world.  The  dogma,  with  the 
Syllabus  of  Pius  IX.  as  one  of  its  concomitants, 
raises  the  most  serious  issues  in  respect  of  na- 
tional, political,  and  personal  freedom.  One  of 
the  errors  condemned  by  the  Syllabus  (23d)  is, 
that  "the  Roman  Pontiffs  and  CEcumenical 
Councils  have  exceeded  the  limits  of  their 
power,  have  usurped  the  rights  of  princes,  and 
have  even  committed  errors  in  defining  matters 
of  faith  and  morals."  * 

*  Vide  "Syllabus  Erronim." 


COUNCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOPLE.         31I 

It  has  been  truly  remarked  that  though  the 
Syllabus  is  only  negative,  indirectly  it  teaches 
and  enjoins  the  very  opposite  of  what  it  con- 
demns as  error.  The  condemnation  of  the 
twenty-third  proposition  or  "error"  above 
mentioned,  means  that  Gregory  VII.'s  claim 
to  supreme  jurisdiction  over  the  sovereignty 
and  the  obedience  of  nations  was  a  just  claim. 
Dr.  Egar  has  truly  remarked,  that  "the  pro- 
gramme of  Gregory  VII.  was  a  political  pro- 
gramme. It  proposed  to  reduce  the  State,  as 
well  as  the  Church  to  absolute  subjection  to  the 
Papacy,  to  make  the  Pope  the  supreme  lord  of 
every  earthly  power,  as  well  as  the  fountain 
of  all  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  And  this  has 
been  the  claim  of  all  his  successors,  a  claim 
which   has   never   been   abandoned.     Innocent 

III.  declared  that  God  had  ordained  the  Pope, 
as  Christ's  vicar,  "  to  have  power  over  all  na- 
tions and  kingdoms,  to  root  out,  to  pull  down 
and  to  destroy,  and  to  throw  down  and  to  build 
and  to  plant,  appropriating  to  the  Papacy  the 
text  in  the  first  chapter  of  Jeremiah."  *   Innocent 

IV.  went  still  further  than  any  of  his  predeces- 
sors, when,  in  pronouncing  the  deposition  of 
Frederick  the  Second,  he  declared  that  Christ 
bestowed  on  S.  Peter  and  his  successors,  not 

*  paddock  Lectures  for  jtSS;  (Egar),  p.  255. 


312  COUNCILS    OF   CONSTAATINOPLE. 

only  Pontifical,  but  regal  power,  earthly  as  well 
as  heavenly  and  spiritual  government.*  Boni- 
face VI 11.  in  his  conflict  with  Philip  the  Fair 
of  France,  issued,  together  with  other  Bulls,  that 
known  as  Unaui  Sanctam.  Of  this  Bull  Wad- 
dington  writes,  "  The  propositions  asserted  in 
this  celebrated  constitution  are,  first,  the  Unity 
of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  without  which 
there  is  no  salvation  ;  wherein  is  one  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  baptism.  Hence  it  follows,  that  of 
this  one  and  only  Church  there  is  one  Body 
and  one  Head  (not  two  heads,  which  would  be 
monstrous),  namely,  Christ,  and  Christ's  vicar, 
S.  Peter  and  the  successor  of  S.  Peter.  The 
second  proposition  is,  that  in  the  power  of  this 
Chief,  are  two  swords,  the  one  spiritual  and  the 
other  material ;  but  that  the  former  of  these  is 
to  be  used  by  the  Church,  the  latter  for  the 
Church  ;  the  former  is  in  the  hand  of  the  priest, 
the  latter  in  the  hands  of  kings  and  soldiers, 
but  at  the  nod  and  sufferance  of  the  priest.  It 
is  next  asserted  that  one  of  these  swords  must 
be  subject  to  the  other  sword,  otherwise  we 
must  suppose  two  opposite  principles,  which 
would  be  Manichasan  and  heretical.  Thence  it 
is  an  easy  inference,  that  the  spiritual  is  that 
which   has  rule   over  the  other,  while  itself  is 

*  Robertson,  8vo  ed.,  p.  577,  note  H. 


COUNCILS    OF   CONSTANTIXOPLE.  313 

liable  to  no  other  judgment  or  authority  than 
that  of  God.  The  general  conclusion  is  con- 
tained in  one  short  sentence,  "  wherefore  we 
declare,  define,  and  pronounce  that  it  is  abso- 
lutely essential  to  the  salvation  of  every  human 
being,  that  he  be  subject  unto  the  Roman  Pon- 
tiff." *  These  are  the  claims  which,  according 
to  the  Syllabus,  must  not  be  rejected  as  ex- 
ceeding the  limits  of  the  power  of  the  Roman 
Pontiffs.  It  is  most  difficult  to  reconcile  pre- 
tensions such  as  the  above,  reaffirmed  as  they 
are  potentially  by  the  Syllabus  and  made  de 
fide  by  the  dogma  of  the  Pope's  infallibility, 
with  the  liberties  and  the  institutions  which 
God's  Providence  has  granted  to  modern  life 
and  the  modern  nations.  This  dogma,  then, 
so  incompatible  with  the  fact  of  Honorius's 
anathematization,  and  so  freighted  with  the  po- 
litical consequences  above  suggested,  has  more 
than  ever  isolated  Rome,  and  widened  the 
breach  between  the  Oriental  Churches  and 
herself,  as  also  between  Anglican  Christianity 
and  the  educated  world  generally  of  the  West, 
and  the  Apostolic  See.  Until  it  shall  be  re- 
pudiated, or  at  least  explained  in  such  way  as 
shall  reconcile  it  with  history,  this  dogma  of 
the    Papal    Infallibility    must   more   and    more 

*  Waddington's  "  History  of  the  Church,"  p.  352. 


314  COUNCILS    OF   CONSTANTIA'OPLE. 

lessen  the  moral  weight  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
in  the  world,  and  must  obstruct  and  prevent 
that  Christian  unity  which  can  only  be  obtained 
on  Qicumenical  and  historical  bases. 

Summing  up  now  the  practical  results  of  the 
Second  and  Third  Councils  of  Constantino- 
ple, we  may  say  in  respect  of  the  first  of  these, 
that  (i)  it  extirpated  Nestorianism  within  the 
church's  own  borders ;  (2)  by  its  anathema  of 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  of  all  who  de- 
clared him  to  be  "  an  orthodox  expounder,"  it 
struck  a  note  of  warning  against  that  spirit  and 
temper  of  the  Antiochian  school,  which  has 
been  singularly  paralleled  in  our  day  by  a  cer- 
tain tone  manifesting  itself  in  much  of  what  we 
hear  called  the  ''higher  criticism;"  (3)  by  its 
anathema  of  Origen,  it  struck  a  note  of  warning 
also  against  a  method  of  teaching  in  respect  of 
certain  subjects  (also  familiar  to  our  times) 
which  tends  to  evacuate  the  Gospel  of  its  eco- 
nomical influence.  The  results  of  the  second  of 
the  Councils  above  considered,  we  may  say  to 
have  been  (i)  that  by  its  condemnation  of  Mono- 
thelitism,  it  added  to  the  scope  and  clearness 
of  the  Church's  dogmatic  apprehension ;  (2)  by 
its  anathematization  of  a  Roman  Pope  as  a 
heretic,  it  has  delivered  the  world  from  the  il- 
lusion of  a  Papal  inerrancy. 

Surely   for  these   results   we    may  be  most 


COCXCILS   OF   CONSTANTINOrLE.  S^S 

thankful.  The  Councils  which  have  given  us 
these  securities  of  faith,  these  witnesses  to  the 
pure  and  simple  doctrine  and  tradition  of  the 
Church,  we  shall  rightly  hold  in  grateful  rev- 
erence, seeing  in  them  organs  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;  hearing  from  them  a  voice  poten- 
tial even  in  our  Nineteenth  Century,  in  guard- 
ing us  against  errors,  dogmatic,  intellectual, 
speculative,  and  ecclesiastical. 

The   Fifth  and   Sixth  (Ecumenical  Councils 
passed  no  canons  of  discipline.      This  was  left 
for  what  was  known  as  the  Quinisext  or  Trul- 
lan  Council  assembled   in  Constantinople  692 
A.D.  or  somewhat  later,  by  Justinian   II.      Its 
name  Quinisext,  indicates  its  supplementary  re- 
lation to  the  Fifth  and  Sixth  (Ecumenical  Syn- 
ods.    This  council  has  a  certain  practical  im- 
portance, because   among  the  canons   enacted 
by  it,  there  were  six  that  were  most  displeasing 
to  the  Roman  Church.      The  sixth  canon,  e.g., 
renewed  the  canons  of  the  Second  and  Fourth 
General  Councils,  as  to  the  privileges   of  the 
See  of  Constantinople.     The  thirteenth  canon 
permitted  those  of  the  clergy  who  had  married 
before   ordination    as    sub-deacons,    to    retain 
their  wives.      The  fifty-fifth  canon  ordered  that 
the  "Apostolical"  canon,  which   forbade  fast- 
ing on  any  Saturday  except  Easter  Eve,  should 
be  extended  to  the  Church  of  Rome.     "  In  con- 


3l6  COUNCILS    OF   COXSTANTINOPLE. 

tradicting  Roman  usages,  the  thirtieth  and  fif- 
ty-fifth canons  expressly  stated  that  they  Avere 
such,  and  required  the  Roman  Church  to  aban- 
don them."  The  recognition  of  these  canons  by 
the  East,  where  they  were  quoted  as  the  work 
of  the  Sixth  General  Council,  and  their  rejec- 
tion by  Rome,  became  the  first  manifest  step 
toward  the  separation  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
Churches. 

Most  fortunately,  however,  before  the  break 
at  last  came,  the  faith  of  the  Undivided  Church 
had  been  declared ;  her  Catholic  and  world- 
wide institutions  established ;  her  words  of 
warning  uttered.  And  to-day,  in  the  face  of 
what  we  must  sadly  call  a  divided  Christen- 
dom, we  can  yet  rejoice  that  in  every  part 
of  the  Catholic  Household  there  is  still  One 
Lord,  One  Faith,  One  Order,  One  Liturgical 
Worship  (in  substance).  One  Established  Sys- 
tem, which  no  divisions  really  impair,  but  which 
over  all  the  earth  are  the  joy  of  the  faithful,  the 
strength  of  the  weak,  the  beacon-light  of  the 
erring,  the  refuge  of  souls  in  time  and  for 
eternity. 


It  seems  scarcel}^  necessary  to  say  that  the 
Church  Club  is  not  responsible  for  any  individ- 
ual opinions  on  points,  not  ruled  by  the  Church, 
which,  the  learned  theologians  who  have  been 
good  enough  to  lecture  under  its  auspices,  may 
have  expressed. 


931.2 


Si9 


(     1 


0057102929 


^^0%%pOT 


